Delhi District Court
State vs . Roopa Singh. on 28 February, 2018
State Vs. Roopa Singh.
IN THE COURT OF PAWAN KUMAR MATTO,
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New Sessions Case Number : 52289/2016
State
versus
Roopa Singh
W/o Sh. Rajiv Singh (Rajeev Ranjan)
R/o H-5/47 Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi
At Present R/o 136, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi
First Information Report Number : 320/2009
Police Station : Maurya Enclave
Under section : 302/309 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case received in this Court on : 06.10.2017
Final Arguments concluded on : 17.02.2018
Date of judgment : 28.02.2018
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the case are that the DD No. 56B Ex. PW-21/A was registered on dated 01.07.2009 at 10:10 PM, wherein, it was mentioned that an information was received that in the City Park Hotel in Pitampura, few persons were staying in a room and it was asked to open the said room, as there was something wrong therein and when, the door of the said room was broken, three persons were found in unconscious condition, whose relatives had taken them to the Max Hospital and DD no. 56-B was marked to SI Sh. R. D. Sharma and when Sh. R. D. Sharma along with Ct. Surender arrived in the room no. 601 of Hotel City Park, they found that door of the said room was in broken FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 1/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
condition and in the said room, the toys of the children were lying and on the sofa and table other clothes of the lady and children were found lying scattered and there was bed-sheet of white colour on the bed and blood stains were also found thereon and 03 used syringes were also found on the slab in the bathroom of the said room and one used syringe and two unused syringes wrapper were also lying there, two empty vials of the injections were also lying (wherein small quantity of medicine was also found) whereon, Succinyl Choline Chloride IP sucol for I.M. /I.B./I.V. infusion used NEON was written and in the dustbin, which was lying in the corner of the bathroom, wrapper of empty syringe was lying and ladies purse was also lying on right side of double bed, which was containing documents and articles of Roopa and on the back of the double bed, an envelope of Khaki colour was lying, whereon MADHUBAN Pharmacy was written and another empty envelope of Madhuban Pharmacy was lying on the cloth which were put on the Sofa and it was revealed that all the unconscious persons found in the room were sent to the Hospital and Sh. R. D. Sharma left Ct. Surender in the Hotel and went to the Hospital and found that on MLR of Twinkle bearing no. 1361 and MLR of Tanya bearing no. 1362 alleged history of poisoning followed by "unconsciousness and declared clinically dead at 10:20 PM and on the MLR No. 1363 of accused Roopa Singh (as told by her husband), alleged history of self injection of some unknown drug and unfit for statement was written. And MLRs were obtained and dead bodies of Twinkle & Tanya were deposited in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital through Ct. Rishipal and it was also revealed that Dr. Roopa Singh accused was married with Dr. Rajeev on 21.08.2001 and the intimation to the SDM, Saraswati Vihar was also given and crime team & photographer were also called and the place of occurrence was photographed and inspected and as per the order of SDM, Saraswati Vihar, the Executive Magistrate, Kanjhawala was apprised about the facts, who arrived at the spot and investigation was initiated and accused was found unfit for making statement and from the MLR of accused, it was revealed that Dr. Roopa Singh FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 2/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
is a professional doctor, who had deliberately and with the intention to kill them administered the poisonous injections to her daughters, who had expired and accused was unfit for making statement and FIR was registered U/S 302/309 of IPC and intimation in this regard was sent to the senior officer of the police, the postmortems on the dead bodies of Tanya & Twinkle were conducted, exhibits were sent to FSL and statements of the witnesses of the prosecution were recorded and this accused Roopa Singh was arrested on dated 06.07.2009, she was medically examined in the hospital on 07.07.2009 and statement of the accused Ex.PW30/B was also recorded by the SDM and this accused has also made disclosure statement and on completion of the investigation, the Charge sheet was filed against the accused Roopa Singh under Section 302/309 of IPC in the Court of Committing Magistrate and the copy of Charge-sheet was supplied to the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was assigned to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and on finding prima facie case, the charges under Section 302 & 309 of IPC were framed against accused Roopa Singh, to which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, the accused was put on trial. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 22.04.2010 was pleased to grant bail to this accused.
2. Since, this was an old matter, so, on dated 06.10.2017, this case was received by this Court by way of transfer.
3. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined 34 witnesses.
4. Sh. Anil Kumar, who was working as Front Office Assistant in Hotel City Park has been examined as PW-1 and cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
5. Sh. Sauryavir Singh, Executive Magistrate, has been examined as PW-
FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 3/1002, who has deposed that on 02.07.2007, he was posted as Executive Magistrate Suresh Kumar and on that day, he had received a message from the Police Station Maurya Enclave regarding the mishap in the Hotel City Park. He rushed to said hotel. Inspector Ramsunder SHO PS Maurya enclave and Inspector Yashpal met him in the said hotel and explained about the incident took place in the hotel and he went to room no. 601 in the said hotel and saw that used injections, syringes, toys, clothes of children and purse of the accused Roopa Singh, were found lying in the said room and all the above said articles were taken into possession by the police in the presence of this witness. He has also deposed that Dr. Roopa Singh was not in condition to make the statement, so, she was admitted in the Max Hospital, Pitampura and thereafter, he had recorded the statement of Vishal Mathur, which is Ex.PW2/A, statement of Anil Kumar is Ex.PW1/A, statement of Kulbir Singh is Ex.PW2/D and thereafter, he returned to his office and he has also deposed that on 04.07.2009, he was called by the SHO at Max Hospital as Dr. Roopa Singh had regained her consciousness and this witness arrived at Max Hospital and recorded the statement of Dr. Roopa Singh Ex.PW2/C and thereafter, he directed to SHO to proceed further, as per law, vide his endorsement Ex.PW2/C had encircled at point X. This witness was cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that no document was prepared by the IO, in his presence when, he reached at hotel City Park and he did not remember the name of the doctor, who told him on dated 04.07.2009 that Dr. Roopa was fit to make the statement. He has admitted that no fitness certificate was obtained on dated 04.07.2009, when, he had recorded the statement of the accused and voluntarily deposed that Doctor had mentioned in MLR of the Dr. Roopa about her fitness. He has also admitted it to be correct that in his personal opinion. He could not assess whether Dr. Roopa was fit to make the statement prior to recording her statement.
6. Whereas, Kulbir Singh, Taxi Driver has been examined as PW-3 and he FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 4/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
7. Wheras, Dr. Shivani, who had medically examined Tanya, Twinkle and Roopa Singh, has been examined as PW-4 and cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. Whereas, Sh. Vishal Mathur, has been examined as PW-5 and cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. Whereas, Ashok Kumar Manchanda has been examined as PW-6 and cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. Whereas, Dr. Rajeev Ranjan, who is the husband of the accused, has been examined as PW-7. He was also cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused.
11. Whereas, Narender Kumar has been examined as PW-8, who has deposed that he is doing job of photography and on dated 01.07.2009, he was called by the police officials at Pitam Pura in Hotel City Park and he went to the room, where, police officials were present and he took 52-53 photographs in the said room and from different angles with digital camera and he identified the 53 photographs Ex.PW-8/1-53. This witness has further deposed that he took the photographs in room No. 601, City Park Hotel at the instance of the IO. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he arrived in the City Park Hotel at about 11:00 PM and the police officials met this witness in front of the room and 2-3 guards were present inside the room along with police staff and 2-3 persons were also present. He has denied that he has deposed falsely.
12. Whereas, Mr. Parbir Kumar Roy has been examined as PW-9 and cross FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 5/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
13. Whereas, Kamal Kishore has been examined as PW-10 and cross examined by the Ld. Counsel.
14. Whereas, Mr. Bhushan Mishra, has been examined as PW-11 and cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
15. Whereas, Niranjan Singh has been examined as PW-12, who has deposed that he is working with Komansu Electronics Pvt. Ltd. which is indulged in manufacture and supply of CCTV cameras and recording and monitoring work and the Company has installed CCTV cameras in City Park Hotel. He has further deposed that he has done computer software and hardware course and on 02.07.2009, the owner had told to this witness about the incident and asked to show the recording and to prepare the C.D. (Compact Disc). Accordingly, he prepared the C.D. Ex.P1. When the Ld. APP for the State has sought permission to ask leading question to this witness and after hearing, the Ld. Predecessor of this court was pleased to allow the leading question and then, he has denied that he was monitoring the CCTV recording in the Hotel City Park on behalf of Komnsu Electronics Pvt. Limited and voluntarily deposed that the some other persons were doing the job of monitoring of CCTV Cameras in the said hotel. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has denied that he is not employed with Komansu Electronics or that he has not done the course in Computer Engineering.
16. Whereas, Dr. V. K. Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital, Delhi, who had conducted the postmortems on the dead bodies of both the deceased, namely, Twinkle & Tanya has been examined as PW-13 and cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 6/10017. Whereas, HC Rohtas has been examined as PW-13A. This witness has deposed that on 02.07.2009, he was posted as HC at PS Maurya Enclave and on that day, he was doing the job of Duty Officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight and he had recorded the FIR No. 320/2009 U/s 302/309 of IPC and made endorsement on the Rukka Ex.PW13/A and he has proved the carbon copy of the FIR Ex.PW13/B. Opportunity to cross examine this witness is given to the accused. But the same was done nil.
18. Whereas, Rakesh Sharma has been examined as PW-14, who has deposed that he was working as Chief Security Officer in Hotel City Park and on date of occurrence, it was about 08:30/09:00 PM, he was standing outside his office and a call was received by him from receptionist of Hotel informing him that they had received a call from some person to open room no. 601 and as soon as, he arrived at room no. 601 on the 6th floor of the said Hotel and two boys also arrived there and they asked him to open the door immediately, as it was double locked from inside and after pushing the door and opened by way of breaking and the boys picked two children and one lady, who was also lying in the room and they were taken to Max Hospital in some private vehicle and his senior officers of the Hotel arrived at there and police never met him. He has further deposed that he could identify the accused, if shown. But, the ld. Counsel for the accused has not disputed the identity of the accused and accused was exempted from her personal appearance on that day of examination of this witness. Then, the Ld. APP for the State had sought permission to cross examine this witness and after hearing, the Ld. APP for State was allowed to cross examine this witness on the ground that his testimony is not consonance with previous statement and after hearing, the Ld. APP for the State was allowed to cross examine this witness. During his cross- examination, he has denied that he made statement to the police on 03.07.2009 in the present case. This witness was confronted with the statement Mark FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 7/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
PW14X. He has admitted that incident took place on 01.07.2009. He has further admitted that he received phone call from Vishal Mathur, who was working as Front Officer Assistant in Hotel City Park. He has deposed that he does not recollect whether he received information from Vishal Mathur that there was immediate need of Medical assistance in Room no. 601 and this witness was confronted with portion A to A of Statement Mark PW14/X, where, it was so recorded. He has admitted that first they knocked the door, but, there was no response from inside. He has deposed that he is not aware whether the two boys who had arrived there were relatives of the lady, who had booked the said room. This witness was further confronted with portion B to B of statement Mark PW14/X, where it was so recorded. He has admitted that one lady and two children were lying in unconscious condition on the double bed, on that day. He has admitted that later on, he came to know the name of that lady as Roopa Singh and names of children as Tanya & Twinkle. Opportunity to cross examine this witness is given to the accused. But he was not cross examined. So, the same was done nil. Thus from the unrebutted, uncontroverted, unchalleged & unimpeached testimony of this witness, it is proved on record that this accused along with her minor daughters stayed in the room no. 601 of Hotel City Park on 01.07.2009 and they were brought out of the said room in unconscious condition that too after breaking the door of the said room.
19. Whereas, W/HC Asha, has been examined as PW-15, who has deposed that on 06.07.2009, she was posted at PS Maurya Enclave and on that day, she has joined investigation with Inspector Yashpal. She has deposed that she alongwith Inspector Yashpal went to Max Hospital, from where, accused Roopa was arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW-15/A and her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-15/B and one sealed pullanda bearing the seal of Max Hospital containing the gown and undergarments was seized vide memo Ex PW-15/C. She has further deposed that on 07.07.2009, she again joined FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 8/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
investigation of this case with the IO and accused Roopa was taken to Room no. 601, City Park Hotel, Pitampura, where, accused pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex PW-15/D. Accused Roopa also pointed out at the Chemist Shop at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital at Madhuban chowk, from where, she had purchased syringes and other goods and a pointing out memo Ex. PW-6/C was prepared and thereafter, accused Roopa was got medically examined in the BJRM Hospital. Ld. Addl. PP for the State had sought permission to ask some leading questions to this witness and on hearing, ld. Predecessor of this court was pleased to allow to Ld. APP for State to ask the leading questions. The witness has stated that she could not say that the name of the chemist shop was Madhuban Pharmacy Chemist and Druggist. She has admitted it to be correct that the accused had pointed out that she had purchased some syringes and Sucol Neon vials from the said shop and that Ashok Kumar Manchanda brought out the bill book no. 56 bearing sl. no. 5501 to 5600 and vide bill serial no. 5592, accused Roopa Singh had purchased the syringes and Sucol Neon vials and the same were seized vide memo Ex. PW- 6/A. She has also admitted it to be correct that on 06.07.2009, during interrogation, accused Roopa Singh gave her disclosure statement Ex. PW- 15/E. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and during her cross examination, she has deposed that she had told to police that she went to Max Hospital alongwith Inspector Yashpal. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW-15/DA, where it was not so recorded. She has also deposed that she does not remember as to how many people signed Ex. PW-15/A, Ex. PW-15/B & Ex.PW-15/C and she arrived at Max Hospital along with Inspector Yashpal on dated 06.07.2009 at 05:00 PM in the private vehicle of Inspector Yashpal and they met to one doctor, but, she could not remember the name of the said doctor and they reached to the accused and then the relatives of the accused were already there she has admitted and some police officers were also present and they remained there for one hour and further deposed that Inspector Yashpal prepared personal search memo, arrest memo and memo of FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 9/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
pullanda in the hospital and her statement was recorded by Inspector Yashpal U/S 161 of Cr.PC and admitted that Inspector Yashpal had prepared many documents in the police station, but, she does not remember about the same documents which were prepared in the police station and also deposed that when they arrived in the City Park Hotel, they found that the room no. 601 was already closed and same was opened by one of the staff of the hotel and also deposed that till the time, she remained with Inspector Yashpal Singh / IO of the case, Dr. Roopa was not in position to speak and she was repeatedly saying that she does not know anything and confession of this accused was recorded in the hospital and this accused was asking, as to where were her daughters and she has also stated that she does not remember as to how many persons have signed on the disclosure statement of accused. She has denied that no disclosure statement of the accused was recorded.
20. Whereas Dr. Jagat Singh, DMS (Administration), Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi has been examined as PW-16, who has deposed that on 01.10.2009, he was working as DMS (Technical) at BSA Hospital, Delhi and on that day, on the request of IO, he supplied certain documents regarding the period of working in BSA Hospital, her joining letter, medical certificate, DMC registration and information received from Department of Gynae and obs. in respect of accused Roopa. He annexed the photocopies of 10 documents as Annexure 1 & 2 with his request letter to the IO Ex. PW-16/A and the said documents in the judicial file are Ex. PW-16/B1 to B10 (OSR). Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to accused, but, he was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, so the opportunity to cross examine this witness was done NIL. Thus from the unrebutted, uncontroverted, unchalleged & unimpeached testimony of this witness and from the documents proved on record by this witness, it is clear that this accused had joined as senior resident in the department of Obste. & Gynae in the BSA hospital on 03.10.2006 and she worked till 30.06.2009 on Ad-hoc basis and in consequence of such joining FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 10/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
on 03.10.2006, she was posted as Head of Department of Obste. & Gynae.
21. Whereas, SI Narender Singh, Finger Print Expert, Finger Print Bureau, PS Kamla Market, has been examined as PW-17, who has deposed that on 01.07.2009, he was posted as ASI Finger Print Expert in Crime Team, NW District and on receipt of call from Control Room, NW District to reach at Room no. 601, Hotel City Park, Pitampura, Delhi, he alongwith SI Satpal Singh and Ct. Dalbir Singh (photographer) reached there, where, he examined the scene of occurrence and one chance print was developed from tumbler of glass from the spot through Ct. Dalbir. He has deposed that the chance print which was lifted from the spot, was sent to Finger Print Bureau for examination and he has also prepared his crime team report Ex PW-17/A. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination, he has deposed that he arrived at the spot at 11:00 PM in the room no. 601, City Park Hotel and at that time, Inspector Yashpal and IO SI Ramesh Dutt Sharma were already present there and this witness remained there for about three hours and left the spot at about 02 am on dated 02.07.2009. He has denied that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the IO.
22. Whereas, Constable Ram Parkash, has been examined as PW-18, who has deposed that on 30.09.2009, he was posted as Constable at PS Maurya Enclave and on that day, he took 12 sealed pullandas from the Malkhana, out of which, some of the pullandas were having the seal of Max Hospital alongwith the sample seal for depositing the same in the FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 41/21/09 and 42/21/09. He has deposed that he deposited the pullandas at FSL, Rohini and receipt of the same was obtained and handed over to MHC(M) on reaching at PS. He has deposed that so long the case properties remained in his custody, the parcels were not tampered and seals remained intact. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination, he has deposed that he does not remember the impression of the FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 11/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
sample seal and admitted that he had gone through the police file before deposing in the court. He has denied that he has deposed falsely.
23. Whereas, Ct. Surender Singh, has been examined as PW-19, who has deposed that on 01.07.2009, he was posted at PS Maurya Enclave, Delhi and on that day, he alongwith SI R.D. Sharma reached at City Park Hotel, Pitampura, Delhi and when they reached in the Room no. 601 of said Hotel, they found the door of the said room was opened and was in broken condition. He has further deposed that they entered in the said room and found the articles viz. toys and purse were lying in scattered condition and there were blood stains on the double bed sheet and he remained in the said room on the direction of SI Ramesh Dutt Sharma to protect the spot and S.I. Ramesh went to Max Hospital and thereafter, IO again came to the spot and IO seized the toys, bed sheet and purse from the said room and empty boxes of SMS Store were collected from there alongwith three used syringes and he does not recollect the other proceedings conducted by the IO. Then Ld. APP for State had sought permission to cross examine this witness and after hearing, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to allow to the Ld. APP for the State to cross examine this witness and during his cross examination, he has admitted it to be correct that one empty envelope of Madhuban Pharmacy and used syringes having needles were also lying in the said room. He has further admitted it to be correct that some bills were also lying at the spot and said purse was a lady purse and was containing passport, PAN Card and some other documents and he has admitted that on the slab, in bathroom, one used syringe with two empty bottles (vials) having mark of Sucol were lying. He has admitted that in the dustbin of the said room, two small caps of vials having mark of Neon and one empty syringe along with wrapper were also lying and one wrapper was lying on the slab and two unused syringes were also lying on the slab. He has admitted it to be correct that one glass tumbler was also lying on the table and IO seized all the aforesaid articles, after sealing the same with FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 12/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
RDS. He has also admitted his signature on the seizure memos of said articles, which is Ex.PW19/A at point A. He has also admitted that one pair of golden colour sleeper of child was also found lying outside the said room and was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B, PAN, Passport & other articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/C. He has further deposed that syringe & other articles as mentioned by this witness was also prepared vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/D. He has proved the two teddy bears and several plastic toys Ex.P-19/1(colly.) and three pairs of sandals, out of which, two are of children and one is of big size Ex.P-19/2(colly.), one wrapper of five syringes each of 5 ml and wrapper containing two syringes with needles Ex.P- 19/3(colly.), one brown colour ladies purse Ex.P-19/4, one ladies suit of cream colour with patch work along with dupatta, one biscuit colour pyjami are Ex.P- 19/5(colly.) and two jeans nicker of blue colour and two small children underwear, two handkerchief of yellow colour and two tops of pink, white base, one small panty of pink colour Ex.P-19/6(colly.) and one mobile phone maker of which is Nokia N73 of black colour is Ex.P-19/7, one ladies wrist watch, maker of which is fossil and three golden ladies finger rings are Ex.P- 19/8(colly.) and one white bet sheet having cut holes at various places is Ex.P- 19/9 and this witness has also deposed that earlier he had forgotten these facts in view of lapse of time. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has admitted that he does not remember the time when, he arrived in the City Park Hotel and firstly, he had arrived at Reception of the hotel and then, went to the spot and also admitted that there were about 3-4 police officials present at the spot and he remained at the spot till next morning at about 09:00 AM and SHO & ACP had also visited the spot in his presence and he does not remember the time, when, the IO had left the spot. he has admitted that he had gone through the police file prior to recording of his testimony. He has denied that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the IO or that he has signed the documents in the police station or that he has deposed falsely.
FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 13/10024. Whereas, the lady Ct. Vinod Kumari has been examined as PW-20, who has deposed that on dated 14.07.2009, she was posted as Constable in CPCR and her duty hours were from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM and at about 22:04 hours, she received a call from land line number 1142310200 of Hotel City Park, Pitam Pura, Delhi that three persons are lying unconscious in the room of hotel and lock of the said room was broken and the victims were taken by their relatives to Max Hospital and she filled PCR form Ex.PW20/A regarding the aforesaid information and informed PS Maurya Enclave. The opportunity to cross examine this witness is given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but, this witness was not cross examined. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross- examine this witness was done nil. Since this occurrence had taken place on 01.07.2009 and this witness was examined in the court on dated 07.04.2012 and PCR Form Ex. PW-20/A proved by this witness reveals that call was received on dated 01.07.2009, so it appears to the court that in view of the big gap of time between date of occurrence and in examination of this witness in the court, this witness has deposed dated 14.07.2009 in place of 01.07.2009. But PCR Form Ex. PW-20/A makes it clear that PCR Call was made on 01.07.2009.
25. Whereas, S.I. Sh. R. D. Sharma, has been examined as PW-21, who has deposed that on 01.07.2009, he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Maurya Enclave and on that day, DD No. 56B Mark PW21/A was recorded and it was assigned to this witness for investigation and this witness along Ct. Surender went to the place of occurrence i.e. Room No. 601, Hotel City Park, Pitam Pura, Delhi and found that door of the said room of the hotel was in broken condition and toys, slipper and empty pouch of Madhuban Pharmacy were lying on the floor. He has further deposed that bed sheet of the said room was having blood stains and clothes of children and lady were lying on the sofa and one empty pouch was also lying between the clothes and the said pouch was having mark of SM Store and bill was also lying there. He has further deposed FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 14/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
that on the right side of bed, one ladies purse was lying and on checking the said purse, it was found containing one PAN Card, Passport and some other documents and on further checking of the said room, a used syringe along with needle was found lying on a slab in the bathroom and two empty vials having mark of sucol neon were lying and two vials with green colour cap were lying in the dustbin having the aforesaid marks and one empty wrapper was lying in the dustbin and one empty wrapper was lying on the slab having two syringes and one tumbler was lying on the table and on enquiry, this witness came to know that the victims i.e. one lady doctor and two small girls were shifted to the hospital, this witness left Ct. Surender at the spot and went to the Hospital and in the hospital, he found both the girls declared brought dead and the lady doctor was under treatment and doctor handed over the blood samples of both the girls, as well as of the lady doctor(accused) to this witness, which was seized by this witness vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A. He has further deposed that Inspector Yashpal also arrived in hospital from the police station and he was directed by him to reach at the spot and he remained in the hospital and he called Crime Team at the spot, who inspected the spot and after some time, Inspector Yashpal also reached at the spot and the photographer of the crime team clicked photographs of the spot. He seized toys of children, blood stained bed sheet and empty as well as other syringes along with wrappers. This witness has also deposed that Inspector Yashpal prepared Rukka and handed over to Ct. Surender, who took the same to the PS Maurya Enclave and FIR was got registered there and this witness arrived in the PS Maurya Enclave along with the sealed pullandas and deposited the same in the Malkhana and his statement was recorded by the IO. The Ld. APP for the State had sought permission to cross examine this witness as he was not able to tell the material facts and on hearing, Ld. Predecessor was pleased to allow to the Ld. APP for the State to cross examine this witness and during his cross-examination, he had admitted that the victims along with their mother were taken to BSA Hospital and also admitted it to be correct that lady doctor along with two small FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 15/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
girls came to hotel on 01.07.2009 between 05:30/06:00 PM and she made payment for an amount of Rs. 13,000/- and she hired a taxi and went to purchase some articles from the market along with her children. This witness has further admitted it to be correct that he came to know that lady doctor had gone to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital to purchase some medicines and she returned in the hotel at about 07:30 PM and he also came to know during investigation that a call was received from Mobile Phone No. 99108960909 and on receiving of the said call, door of room no. 601 was broken and victims were shifted to Max Hospital. He has further admitted it to be correct that he received two sample of gastric lavage of Mrs. Roopa along with one sealed small bottle containing urine sample of Mrs. Roopa, MLR of Dr. Roopa, one blood sample of Tanya along with her urine sample, one sealed gastric sample of Tanya, one gastric lavage of Twinkle along with her blood sample and three sample seals of Max Hospital and all the articles mentioned above were seized through seizure memo Ex.PW21/A and he also seized clothes of lady including one ladies suit along with dupatta, one badami colour pajami, two small nickers of blue colour one small pajami of pink colour, two small shirts of child, two handkerchief, one small underwear of child and all the clothes were kept in a plastic polythene and sealed with the seal of RDS and seizure memo thereof is Ex.PW19/A and he has also admitted that he had seized one pair of slippers at the entry of the door of the aforesaid room with badami and golden colour steps, one pair of sandle of child having mark of Happy Dog, one other pair of sandle with the aforesaid make. He kept all the slipper and sandles in a plastic bag and sealed with the seal of RDS. He has further deposed that the seizure memo of same is Ex.PW19/B and he also seized a golden coloured ring, one other golden ring having stone, PAN Card, Viza Card of ICICI Bank, Passport, Card of Standard Max Club, one privilege card of SM Store, Rs. 765/- in cash, one bunch of keys with three keys, one headphone of Nokia black colour, one slip of ICICI bank dated 30.06.2009 and all the articles were kept in a sealed parcel with the seal of RDS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/C and FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 16/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
further deposed that this witness also seized one ladies wrist watch make fossil, two small rings of golden colour and one small ring of white colour were kept in a small pullanda with the seal of RDS and three used syringe which were kept in a cartoon box and were sealed with the seal of RDS and the articles were seized vide memo Ex.PW19/D and he also seized the toys lying in the said room through seizure memo Ex.PW21/B through sealed pullanda with the seal of RDS and he also seized the syringe, vials, injections etc. from the said room as well as bathroom of the said room vide Ex.PW21/C and sealed with the seal of RDS and further deposed that he also seized two tumblers from the said room by keeping them in a small cartoon box vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/D with the seal of RDS and he also seized blood stained bed sheet through a sealed pullanda with the seal of RDS through seizure memo Ex.PW21/E, seized mobile phone maker of which Nokia Ex.PW21/F. He has further deposed that he could not tell this fact as he had forgotten the same due to lapse of time as well as due to paralytic stroke suffered by him and he has identified the case properties i.e. plastic toys Ex.PW19/1(colly.), two pairs of sandles of children and one ladies pair of slippers Ex.PW19/2(colly.), one plastic jar containing wrapper of injection in which there were two syringes of 5 ml besides other empty wrappers Ex.PW19/3(colly.). He has further deposed that PAN Card, Viza Card of ICICI Bank, Passport, Card of Standard Max Club, one privilege card of SM Store, Rs. 760/- in cash, two coins of Rs. 2 and one coin of Rs. 1/-, one bunch of keys with three keys, one headphone of Nokia black colour, one slip of ICICI Bank dated 30.06.2009 Ex.PW19/4(colly.) seized by him. One ladies suit of cream colour with patch work along with dupatta and one biscuit colour pajami Ex.PW19/5(colly.) and two jeans nicker of blue colour, two small children underwear, two handkerchief of yellow colour, top, one small panty of pink colour Ex.PW19/6(colly.). He has also proved Nokia N-73 Ex.PW19/7. He has also proved one ring of diamond shape having small diamond nugs, a wrist watch maker of which Fossil Ex.PW19/8(colly.) and bed sheet having several cutting holes Ex.PW19/9, FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 17/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
which was also seized. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO either on 03/04 July 2009, but, he does not remember the exact date and he met with an accident and was having memory problem and when he reached first time at the spot i.e. the hotel, no police official had met him and he has denied that he has deposed falsely.
26. Whereas, Dr. Neeraj, Junior Specialist (Obs. & Gyane.), Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, has been examined as PW-22, who has deposed that he was asked by the HOD (Gyane. Department), BSA Hospital to inform about the work and conduct of Dr. Roopa(accused), who was working as Sr. Resident in the aforesaid department and he gave his report to HOD mentioning therein that work & conduct of the accused as Sr. Resident was satisfactory and she has performed her duties properly. The certificate in this regard issued by this witness is Ex.PW16/B1 and this witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that generally, the Gynae department is overloaded with the work, Dr. Roopa was working in Gynae & Obs as Senior Resident in Ambedkar Hospital and he was not aware whether she was working on Ad-hoc or permanent basis. He has further deposed that Dr. Roopa was junior to him and there was no occasion to discuss about her personal life and she never shared with him any family issues/ problems etc. during her tenure, she worked hard with keen interest and devotion, he had no knowledge whether the ad-hoc period of Dr. Roopa was to be expired within 2-3 months and he does not know about the friends of Dr. Roopa.
27. Whereas, HC Bhagat Singh has been examined as PW-23, who has deposed that on dated 02.07.2009, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Maurya Enclave, Delhi and on that day, SI Ramesh Dutt got deposited with him 10 sealed pullandas along with 8 more pulandas of Max Hospital, Subhash Place FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 18/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
and three sample seals which he deposited in Malkhana vide entry no. 273/09 in register no. 19. He has further deposed that on dated 05.07.2009, Inspector Yashpal Singh also got deposited with him six sealed pullandas sealed with seal of BJRM Hospital along with four sample seals of FMT, BJRM hospital along with two viscera i.e. sealed wooden box sealed with the seal of FMT, BJRM hospital along with two sample seal of FMT, BJRM hospital which he deposited in the malkhana vide entry no. 277/09. This witness has further deposed that on 06.07.2009, the Inspector Yashpal Singh also got deposited with this witness one sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of MAX Hospital, which, he deposited in the malkhana vide entry no. 278/09. This witness has further deposed that on 30.09.2009, 22 pulandas including 7 sample seals were handed over to Ct. Ram Parkash to be deposited at FSL, Rohini who took the same vide RC No. 41/21/09 dated 30.09.2009 and out of which, 20 pulandas including sample seal were deposited by him in Chemical Division, at FSL Rohini but one pulanda and one sample seal could not be deposited in Biology Division, FSL, which he brought back to PS and said pulanda and sample seal were again handed over to Ct. Ram Parkash, who deposited the same in BIO Division, FSL vide RC No. 42/21/09 and obtained the receipt of the same, which he handed over to this witness. This witness has proved the register no. 19 and copy of relevant entries Ex.PW23/A(9 pages)(colly.)(OSR). He has also proved the Register No. 21 containing the aforesaid relevant entries and the receipt of FSL, the photocopy of the relevant entries is Ex.PW23/B(5 pages)(colly.)(OSR). Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused. But the same was done nil.
28. Whereas, Ct. Mahavir Singh has been examined as PW-24, who has deposed that on 02.07.2009, he was posted as constable at PS Maurya Enclave and on that day, duty officer handed over the copy of FIR No. 320/09 for delivery of the same to the senior officers as well as concerned M.M. And this witness delivered the copy of the FIR to the concerned police officers as well FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 19/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
as Illaka M.M. And this witness went to deliver the same on govt. motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SN-4120. He has also deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO in this regard. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused. But he was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, so, the opportunity to cross examine this witness was done nil.
29. Whereas, Const. Krishan has been examined as PW-25, who has deposed that on 01.07.2009, he was posted as Constable at P.S. Maurya Enclave and on that day, he had handed over DD No. 56 mark PW-21/A by the Duty Officer for delivering of same to SI R.D. Sharma and he handed over the said DD to him in front of T.V. Tower, near Guru Govind Singh College, he returned to the police station after handing over the same to the IO. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but this witness was not cross examined, so, the opportunity to cross examine this witness was done nil.
30. Whereas, Ms. Anita Chhari, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini, Delhi has been examined as PW-26, who has deposed that she is M.Sc. and has undergone the required training of expert for examining the exhibits like the present case and she has examined many similar exhibits and has given reports in many cases, further appeared as expert witness before many courts. This witness has further deposed that on dated 30.09.2009, one cloth parcel with the seal of RDS was received at the office of FSL in connection with this case along with the forwarding letter. It was marked to this witness for examination and opinion. This witness has further deposed that she opened the said parcel and one bed sheet having faint yellowish stains was taken out and on examination, blood was detected on the bed sheet and on further examination using various serological techniques, the blood of human being was detected, but, blood grouping could not be done and the report along with forwarding FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 20/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
letter running into three pages is Ex.PW26/A. She has identified her signatures at point A and it was typed in her office, on her dictation and the same is correct. She has further deposed that after examination, remnant of exhibit was sealed with her seal i.e. AC FSL Delhi. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused. But he was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, so, the opportunity to cross examine this witness was done nil. No doubt that this witness has failed to do the grouping of the blood found on the bed sheet recovered from the Room no. 601 of the Hotel City Park for the best reasons known to her. But her report Ex. PW-26/A reveals that Human Blood was detected on the said bedsheet.
31. Whereas, Dr. A. K. Dewan, CMO(SAG), Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi has been examined as PW-27, who has deposed that Dr. Roopa Kopuri @ Roopa Singh had joined as Sr. Resident in the Department of Obste & Gynae in BSA Hospital sometime in October, 2006 and she was referred to this witness for her medical examination required at the time of joining. He was the In-charge of the Medical Board and she was medically examined and after examination from different doctors including Eye, ENT, Dental, Etc., she was fit to be appointed as Sr. Resident in the Hospital and this witness had also issued a medical certificate for appointment, having affixed the photograph of Dr. Roopa. This witness has further deposed that Dr. Roopa had also declared about her state of health, fit and the photocopy of the medical examination report including the statement and declaration of the accused running into four pages Ex.PW27/A(colly.). This witness identified his signature thereon at points A. This witness also identified the photocopy of medical certificate Ex.PW27/B issued by this witness for appointment of the accused and this witness had also attested the photograph of the accused along with his official seal which is at encircled portion at point X on Ex.PW27/B. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused. But he was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, so, the FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 21/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
opportunity to cross examine this witness was done nil.
32. Whereas, Dr. Dolly Chawla, HOD(Obs. & Gynae), Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi has been examined as PW-28, who has deposed that in October, 2009, she was working as HOD (Obs. & Gynae.) Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and IO of this case had sought certain queries/information about Dr. Roopa Singh i.e. accused of this case and during the period i.e. 02.03.2009 to 31.08.2009, she was at AIIMS for WHO Fellowship, so, she had taken assistance of two specialist doctor namely, Dr. Vinita Gupta and Dr. Neeraj Sharma regarding the duty performance of accused and the report of Dr. Neeraj Sharma and Dr. Vinita Gupta are Ex.PW16/B/-1(OSR) & Ex.PW28/A(OSR). This witness has further deposed that accused has never made any complaint nor supplied any document regarding any type of problem and the original duty chart of the different doctors including Dr. Roopa pertaining to June, 2009 has also been brought by the record clerk(OSR) and the copy of same is Ex.PW28/B and as per information/record, the accused had performed usual duty and she lastly performed her night duty on 29.06.2009 and he had also given his report addressed to M.S. which is in her hand writing(OSR) and copy of same is Ex.PW28/C and she has identified her signatures at point A. This witness has further deposed that she had never noticed nor it was brought to her notice any problem in the working of this accused and she had performed the duty in proper manner like any other doctor. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during her cross examination, she has deposed that she and accused used to interact each other almost daily in their duty hours and this witness had observed the accused as a normal person and accused was working on ad-hoc basis at that time. This witness has further deposed that if she is asked to give accused the grade regarding her working, then, she would give her average and accused had never made any complaint against any person. This witness has deposed that she cannot say whether any application for leave was moved by the accused for 01.07.2009 as accused was FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 22/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
at AIIMS for WHO Fellowship and as per the record brought by the Record Clerk, Dr. Sandhya Jain, HOD (Obs. & Gynae) had reported to M.S. BSA Hospital regarding absence of accused through application dated 03.07.2009 about her non attending duty w.e.f. on 01.07.2009 and onwards and photocopy of the said report is Ex.PW28/DA.
33. Whereas, Dr. Vinita, Specialist (Obs. & Gynae.) Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi has been examined as PW-29, who has testified that in the year 2009, she was working in the Department of Obs. & Gynae., Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi as Specialist and the HOD Dr. Dolly Chawla had sought report from her about the performance of work of Dr. Roopa Singh i.e. accused of this case working as Senior Resident, Department of Obs. & Gya. This witness has further deposed that she had found her work performance as proper and no adverse was found against her during her working of last 6 months i.e. w.e.f. January, 2009 to June, 2009. This witness had given his report Ex.PW28/A in writing to HOD Dr. Chawla in this regard. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during her cross examination, she has admitted that she & accused used to interact each other almost daily in their duty hours and this witness observed the accused as a normal person and found her work centered/hard working person. This witness has further deposed that accused had never made any complaint against any person whether it is staff member or family member. She has admitted that Dr. Nirja Sharma & Dr. Preeti Gabrial worked with this accused and these two doctors were also Senior Resident and if this witness is asked to give accused the grade regarding her working, she would give her good.
34. Whereas, HC Rishi Raj, has been examined as PW-30, who has testified that in July, 2009, he was constable and was posted at P.S. Maurya Enclave and on dated 02.07.2009 on being called by SI R.D. Sharma, he had reached Max Hospital, where, IO collected the blood, urine sample and gastric leverage of FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 23/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
accused, deceased Tanya & Twinkle in sealed condition and same seal of MAX Hospital through seizure memo Ex.PW21/A. He has identified his signatures thereon at point A. This witness has further deposed that IO handed over the dead body of the deceased Girl Tanya and Twinkle with direction to get the same preserved at the mortuary of BJRM Hospital vide written request, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW30/A and this witness went to Mortuary BJRM Hospital got preserved the dead body vide token no. 47 & 48 at 02:45 AM and he remained present at the Mortuary for care of the dead body. This witness has further deposed that on 04.07.2009, the inquest proceeding was conducted and he was present during that time and Executive Magistrate Sh. S.V. Singh recorded the statements of Vishal Mathur, Anil Kumar, Kulvir Singh and of accused. The statement of accused is Ex.PW30/B. This witness has further deposed that the postmortem on the dead bodies of the deceased were conducted and after postmortem and identification the dead bodies of the deceased girls were handed over to their father Sh. Ranjiv Ranjan, vide receipt Ex.PW7/A and he has identified his signatures thereon at point B and the concerned doctor handed over the wooden viscera box in sealed condition with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital and two sample seals to the IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/C and he has identified his signatures at point A. This witness has further deposed that IO also seized the other six sealed parcels and four sample seal stated to be skin etc. of the deceased, vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/D and his statement was recorded by the IO. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused. But he was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, so, the opportunity to cross examine this witness was done nil.
35. Whereas, Sri Narain, Assistant Director Chemistry, FSL, Rohini has been examined as PW-31, who has testified that on 30.09.2009, twenty sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL, Rohini and same was marked to this witness for examination and on receiving the parcels the seals were found FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 24/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
intact. This witness has examined the aforesaid parcels and prepared detailed report Ex.PW31/A and he has identified his signature at point A on each page and after the examination, the same were resealed with the seal of SN,FSL,Delhi. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has done chemical examination of his own and he cannot tell the exact time consumed by him in chemical examination of particular exhibits and further deposed that he has mentioned the dates of chemical examination of the exhibits in his report as 19.07.2012 to 31.08.2012. He has further deposed that he had rightly adopted the prescribed norms in examining and he has experience of more than 24 years and also deposed that he did not obtain any degree of forensic science or to file such reports. He has denied that he had not undergone any training or that report has been submitted by him without adopting proper norms and procedure, as per the forensic science. No doubt that in the report of FSL Ex. PW-31/A, it is mentioned that succinyle choline chloride was detected only in the vials of injection Ex.18-A & Ex.18-B recovered from the room no. 601 of the hotel city park.
36. Whereas, Dr. Bhrighunath Singh has been examined as PW-32, who has deposed that on dated 05.07.2009, he had identified the dead bodies of his grand daughters namely, Twinkle & Tanya at Mortuary BJRM Hospital and his statement recorded by the IO on that day to this effect and his statement regarding the identification of dead body of Twinkle is Ex.PW32/A, signed by this witness at point A. His statement regarding the identification of dead body of Tanya is Ex.PW32/B, signed by this witness at point A. He has further deposed that Twinkle & Tanya were born out of the legal wedlock of his son Dr. Rajeev Ranjan and his daughter in law Dr. Roopa Singh. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused. But he was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, so, the opportunity to cross examine this witness was done nil.
FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 25/10037. Whereas, Inspector Yashpal, who is Investigating Officer of the present case, has been examined as PW-33, who has deposed that on 02.07.2009, as per order of SHO, SI R.D. Sharma had handed over the copy of DD No. 56B dated 01.07.2009 along with other relevant documents and said DD was enquired by him, SI R.D. Sharma had briefed him about the enquiry conducted by him and this witness had mentioned the same in his endorsement Ex.PW33/A and he prepared Tehrir on DD No. 56B and he produced the same Tehrir before DO and got the FIR No. 320 registered and took up the Investigation. He has further deposed that he had recorded the statement of lady Ct. Neelam, Ct. Surender and Ct. Krishan and thereafter, he along with SI R.D. Sharma had arrived at the spot i.e. room no. 601, Hotel City Park, Pitampura and prepared site plan Ex.PW33/B at the instance of SI R.D. Sharma and he had recorded the statement of SI R.D. Sharma. He has also deposed that on 03.07.2009, he had recorded the statements of employees of City Park Hotel, namely, Anil kumar, Vishal Mathur, Rakesh Sharma & P.K. Roy and Sh. P. K. Roy had handed over a CD of CCTV footage of the camera to him, which was installed at the main entrace gate of the said hotel. And the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. He has also deposed that on the same day i.e. 03.07.2009, Vishal Mathur had handed over the registration card Ex.PW1/B and receipts regarding her staying in the said hotel Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, ExPW1/E in the name of accused Roopa and he had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. He has further deposed that on 05.07.2009, he arrived in the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital, he got the dead bodies of the Tanya & Twinkle identified from Dr. Rajeev Ranjan & Dr. Bhrigunath and recorded their statements Ex.PW32/A & Ex.PW32/B and statement of Dr. Rajeev Ranjan are Ex.PW33/C and Ex.PW33/D and conducted the inquest proceedings and proved form no. 25.35(1)(B) Ex.PW33/E of Tanya and form No. 25.35(1)(B) Ex.PW33/F of Twinkle and proved his request for postmortem of Twinkle Ex.PW33/G1 and request regarding the postmortem on the body of Tanya Ex.PW33/G2 and further deposed after the postmortem, the FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 26/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
dead bodies of Tanya and Twinkle were handed over to Rajeev Ranjan vide handing over memo Ex.PW7/A and further deposed that Doctor had handed over the Viscera of both the deceased in sealed condition with two sample seals of FMT BJRM Hospital and same was seized vide sizure memo Ex.PW30/C. He has further deposed that doctor had handed over the two jars of glass along with four sample seals, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/D and he had recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and thereafter arrived in the Police Station and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He has further deposed that on 06.07.2009, he along with Ct. Asha arrived in the Max Hospital Netaji Subhash Place and on that day, accused Roopa was discharged from the Hospital and doctor had handed over the sealed pullandas with seal of Max Hospital,which was containing the clothes of accused Roopa And same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/C. This witness had interrogated the accused Roopa at Max Hospital. She was arrested and her personal search was conducted by HC Asha vide memos Ex.PW15/A & Ex.PW15/B and he had recorded the disclosure statement of Roopa, which is Ex.PW15/E. He has further deposed that on 07.07.2009, this accused led the police party, which was consisted of this witness, HC Asha & HC Radha Krishan to the hotel City Park and pointed out towards room no. 601 vide pointing out memo Ex.PW15/D and she led to the police to Madhuban Pharmacy, Chemist & drugist Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Madhuban chowk, Rohini and accused had pointed out the said shop from where, she had purchased the medicines and syringes and pointing out memo Ex.PW6/C and this witness had seized the bill book no. 56 containing bill no. 5592 Ex.PW6/B, vide which, the accused had purchased the medicines on 01.07.2009 and he had recorded statement of prosecution witnesses and the accused was produced in the court and was remanded in JC, during investigation, this witness had collected the crime team report, PCR call form, Photographs from the photographer Narender. He has further deposed that on 24.07.2009 on the call of this witness, SI Manohar Lal arrived in the Maurya Enclave and thereafter, FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 27/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
he had gone to City Park Hotel and SI R.D. Sharma had also arrived there and on pointing out by SI R.D. Sharma, SI Manohar Lal took the measurements and prepared rough notes for the preparation of the scaled site plan. He has collected the site plan from him subsequently. But he could not remember the date thereof. He has also deposed that on dated 30.09.2009, he got the exhibits deposited in FSL Rohini through Ct. Ram Prakash and recorded the statement of ct. Ram Prakash and MHC(M) Bhagat Singh and collected the Postmortem reports and on his request, the Deputy medical Superintendent BSA Hospital, Dr. J.S. Martoliya handed over the record to him regarding the joining of the accused Roopa as Sr. Resident in BSA Hospital and her attendance and documents submitted by the accused at the time of her joining in the BSA Hospital including Medical Fitness Certificate vide his letter dated 01.10.2009 Ex.PW16/A, same were made part of record and on showing the bill book Ex.PX of Madhuban Pharmacy containing bill numbers from 5501 to 5600 and one CD Ex.P1 available on the Judicial file. He has also deposed that same were seized by him on being produced by PC Roy and Ashok Kumar Manchanda. He had prepared the charge sheet. This witness was cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not remember as to at what time, he arrived in the City Park Hotel on dated 02.07.2009 and he also does not remember the time of the recording of the statement of the prosecution witnesses and preparation of seizure memo on 03.07.2009 & 05.07.2009 and further deposed that he had recorded the statement of Sh. Bhrigunath, Ct. Rishiraj and Dr. Rajiv Ranjan on dated 05.07.2009. But, he does not remember the time of such recording. He has admitted that on dated 06.07.2009, he had visited the Max Hospital but he does not remember the exact time thereof and also deposed that at that time Roopa was not fit for making statement and he prepared the memo of arrest and memo of personal search of this accused at about 05:30 PM on 06.07.2009 in the presence of HC Asha. He has also stated that he does not remember the time when he had started investigation on 07.07.2009 and further deposed FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 28/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
firstly, he got this accused medically examined in BJRM Hospital. He has admitted that he did not collect all the medical record relating to the accused in the Max Hospital. He has denied that accused did not point out any place as mentioned in her statement. He has also deposed that he does not remember as to from which period & till which date, the accused was not fit for making statement. But at the same time, he has voluntarily deposed that accused was fit for making statement on dated 06.07.2009. He has denied that he had collected the record of treatment of accused at the time of her arrest. He has denied that he was aware that this accused was suffering from acute depression. He has admitted it to be correct that during the stay of accused in the jail, she received treatment and stated that she does not know whether this accused has received treatment from IHBAS just next day or after 2-3 days of her lodging in the jail. He has admitted that on the direction of the court he had collected the record of this accused from IHBAS. He has also deposed that he is not aware if the medical board constituted in the IHBAS had opined that accused was suffering from acute depression. He has admitted that he did not examine any doctor of IHBAS. He has denied that accused was suffering from acute depression at the time of incident. And voluntarily stated that he had collected the record from the BSA Hospital, where the accused was working at the time of incident regarding her fitness to conduct her job as well as regarding her fitness at the time of the Joining in BSA Hospital as doctor. He has admitted it to be correct that he did not investigate regarding the mental condition of the accused i.e. the acute depression of the accused. He has denied that he has not investigated the matter in fair manner.
38. On the completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr. PC was recorded, wherein, she has admitted to have visited the hotel on 01.07.2009 and replying to all the incriminating evidences was put before her and she had not denied the correctness thereof, but, gave evasive replies thereof.
FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 29/10039. The accused Roopa Singh has examined eleven witnesses in her defence.
40. Dr. Raju Easwaran, has been examined as DW-1, who has proved that he had examined baby Tanya D/o Roopa Singh on dated 18.06.2009 and there was no fracture of dislocation of little finger of right hand of Tanya and her injury was simple in nature and he has proved his prescription Ex.DW1/A. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and during his cross examination, he has admitted that the parentage of baby Tanya is not mentioned on Ex.DW1/A and admitted it to be correct that he cannot say that Baby Tanya was daughter of Dr. Roopa singh or not as he does not know Roopa Singh personally and it is not possible for him to identify his patient or his parents after gap of 7/8 years.
41. Dr. Ravi Kant Gupta has been examined as DW-2, who has deposed that he was working in Saroj Hospital and he does not remember the year but in the year 2009-10 at 11:30 PM, Dr. Roopa along with her husband Dr. Rajeev Ranjan and one girl aged about 3-4 years arrived in the casualty with the history of door jamb injury in finger of hand and X-ray was done and injury was appearing to be simple and on asking the leading question by the Ld. counsel for the accused, this witness has admitted that the said patient was examined by him on the intervening night of 17-18.06.2009. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and during his cross examination, he has deposed that on the intervening of 17-18.06.2009, he met Dr. Roopa Singh and her husband for the first time and he is having documentary proof regarding his working at Saroj Hospital and Max Hospital and he had produced some documents Ex. DW2/A and Ex. DW2/B regarding his employment in Saroj Hospital and Heart Institute and Max Health care and when he was asked, as to what did he know about this case, during his posting in the Max Hospital then he has deposed that he had not attended the patients, FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 30/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
when they were brought in hospital, as they were not admitted during his duty time and he had attended Roopa Singh, on the next day and patient was in ICU. He has denied that he had not treated the daughter of Roopa Singh on intervening night of 17-18.06.2009 at Saroj Hospital or that he has deposed falsely.
42. Dr. Priti Garbyal, Specialist Gynae, Dadadev Hospital, Dabri, Delhi has been examined as DW-3, who has deposed that she and accused Roopa Singh were Senior Residents at Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi from 2007 to 2009, in the department of OBS & Gynae and she and Dr. Roopa were good friends at that time and Dr. Roopa was a lady of introvert and shy nature. She has further deposed that Dr. Roopa was very sincere, hard working, dignified and competent person, she always used to talk about her twin daughters and in laws and accused used to remain worry about her daughters. She was also very close to her sister in law (ननद) and their most of the talks used to remain concentrate on above issues only and the job of a senior resident OBS & Gynae is very stressful job and doing night duties & 24 hours shifts are very mentally and physically stressful. She has further deposed that accused never complained about her problems and during day hours duty, many a times, accused used to go to her home in lunch time to feed her kids by skipping her lunch and whenever any case of child abuse came to them, accused used to worry and used to do counselling the parents of child and according to this witness, accused was very empathetic to such child and accused never discussed with her about her parents. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and during her cross examination, she has deposed that she does not know the residential address of Dr. Roopa when she used to work as Senior Resident in BSA Hospital, but, she used to reside at Rohini. Even this witness does not remember that Sector of Rohini, in which, she was residing at that time, it is relating to year 2007 to 2009. she has admitted that she does not have any record that Senior Residents OBS & Gynae used to work FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 31/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
for 24 hours. This witness has denied that no doctor or any other government official is assigned 24 hours duty or that she has deposed falsely on asking of accused in order to extend her help to accused in the present case. Or that she was not having any occasion to make general talks, during duty hours.
43. Dr. Nidhi Tiwari, Gynecologist, MCD Maternity Home, Defence Colony, New Delhi has been examined as DW-4, who has deposed that she knows accused Roopa Singh as she had also worked as Senior Resident at BSA hospital, where, this witness was also working as Sr. Resident, in the year 2006. This witness has further deposed that this witness left BSA Hospital in June 2008 and till then, accused was working with this witness and due to the shortage of Senior Residents and Consultants in the BSA Hospital, at that time, they were having a very hectic schedule and polite with patients and was very hardworking. This witness has further deposed that their working hours were 09:00 AM to 04:00 PM besides the night duties and 24 hours working schedule on Sundays and holidays. They never used to talk about their family matters and accused Roopa was having twin daughters and she used to ask this witness whether accused can go home to feed her children. This witness has further deposed that by nature, she was introvert and non-complaining and accused used to take more work load of others upon her in the hospital and accused used to look very much exhausted, because of work load of the hospital and of home also and further deposed that whenever any child abuse case came, the other doctors took it normally, but, accused used to take extra care of the case and also used to do counseling of the mother & child and when this witness heard the news of this case, it was very shocking for this witness that how a mother, who was so caring for her children, could do so. This witness was cross examined by the ld. APP for the State and during her cross-examination, she has deposed that she does not have any record relating to her posting as S.R. in Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital in the year 2006. Firstly, this witness had admitted that she could produce the record relating to her posting FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 32/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
at BSA Hospital and relating to 24 hours duty and took time. But she failed to produce the said record relating to 24 hours duty and deposed that she does not have any record relating to the fact that Senior Residents (OBS & Gynae) used to perform 24 hours duty in one go or even on Sundays & Holidays. This witness has proved her experience certificate of working in BSA Hospital Ex.DW4/A. This witness has admitted that Dr. Roopa Singh used to work as Gynecologist in the BSA Hospital diligently and accused was merely colleague of her and not friend of her. She has further deposed that at that time, accused was the Sr. Resident in the said hospital and this witness did not osberve any abnormality in her behaviour and accused used to do 08-10 Cesarean in a day independently apart from normal delivery cases 10-15 with the assistance of JR. Dr. Roopa Singh was very fast surgeon and normally it takes about 40-45 minutes in one cesarean, but, accused used to do cesarean in 20-25 minutes. She has denied that she has deposed falsely. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is clear that this accused Roopa Singh was an efficient doctor.
44. Whereas, Ms. Seema has been examined as DW-5, who has deposed that, she is working as Specialist Gyne in Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini and accused Roopa Singh had worked with this witness as Sr. Resident in the Gyane Department of Dr. BSA Hospital since her joining there in the month of September, 2008 till the present incident. This witness has further deposed that accused was very sincere, hard working & introvert girl and though, she was working nicely in the department but almost 15-20 days prior to present incident, once, she was on duty with her, this witness found that accused was little forgetful about the work given to her and to this witness, accused appeared to be bit lost. This witness has further deposed that she called accused and asked about her problems, then, she did not tell this witness anything but, she started crying. Then, again, this witness asked why she was crying, did anyone had said something to her in the department, then, she said, "no Mam, I am bit tired" and told to this witness that she could not able to sleep in night FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 33/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
due to her little twin daughters to whom she loved very much and said that she felt guilty that she was not able to devote much time to them and she did little bit of counseling of this and asked her if in future, accused would have any problem, she could come to this witness and to discuss her problems with her colleagues and thereafter, she was alright. This witness has further deposed that when she came to know about the present incident, then, this witness was able to co-relate that this accused was having some problem in her mind and this witness thought that she should have told this to her relatives. During the investigation of this case, the police as well as husband of Roopa Singh met this witness and this witness told them regarding the said facts. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and during her cross- examination, she has deposed that she is not having any documentary proof of her posting as Specialist Gynea at Dr. BSA Hospital for the relevant period.
45. Dr. Ravi Kiran Kopuri, who is the brother of this accused, has been examined as DW-6, who has deposed that they grew up abroad and studied there since childhood and they were away from their relatives and their family comprised of parents and siblings and were supported to each other and after the education, they came back to India for their graduation. Till then, they shared everything being smaller or big except for plans about her marriage. He has further deposed that in 2002, when his sister and brother in law decided to marry, they opposed the marriage because, he was from different culture and community. He did not attend the marriage and only his parents had attended their marriage and till his sister conceived, he did not talk to her and this was gap of two years. He has further deposed that in 2005, when, she conceived, they were not much happy, because they still did not accept the marriage. When, she called them and intimated them about the news of conception, they replied and asked her to not call them again. He has further deposed that in the year 2008, they had only few calls from Roopa and she used to talk them about her children and in the year 2008, he got engaged and he called her in his FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 34/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
engagement. But, his relation with Roopa was not so good. In the year 2009, he got married. He has further deposed that between 2008 to 2009, they used to exchange the calls, his sister Roopa told this witness about her children and they used to talk about the loss, they have suffered from her marriage and about two weeks before this incident, his sister Roopa called this witness late in the night and told this witness about the injury suffered in the finger of her daughter Tanya. He has further deposed that the way she told to this witness, he thought it was a big injury and he tried to console her and later, he called his brother in law to find out about the injury, but to his surprise it was very small injury and later his brother in law told this witness that she had already consulted few other doctors regarding the injury inspite of the fact that her father in law and husband are doctors. This witness has also deposed that when accused had come to attend his marriage, his mother had told her that earlier she had lost a daughter, but, in view of his marriage on the day of birth of his sister Roopa, his mother had got a new daughter i.e. his wife. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he cannot comment if his sister i.e. accused and her husband were living happily and when this witness used to speak to accused, she used to tell about her children and he got married on 27.02.2009, he would have made talk with Roopa about four times, between the date of his marriage and date of incident. This witness has admitted that his sister was employed in Govt. Hospital during July, 2009 and in the year 2009, his sister Roopa was MBBS and she was also having diploma in Gynaecology and Obsterics. His sister Roopa studied her medical studies from NDMVP Samaj Medical College, Nasik and she used to stay in hostel, during her studies and there was no complaint against her. He has admitted that his sister got married in the year 2002 and his sister was average in studies. He has further deposed that during her post graduation, she got married. He has admitted that during the study period of his sister, no warden of any hostel had ever complained regarding any misconduct of his sister to them. He has further deposed that he never talked to FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 35/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
his brother-in-law i.e. husband of Roopa till the day of incident. He has admitted that he is not summon witness. He has denied that he has come to depose in favour of his sister Roopa, so that, she may not be convicted. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is clear that the accused had done MBBS Diploma in Gynaecology and Obsterics and testimony of this witness is also self contradictory as in his examination in chief, he has deposed that he called to the husband of this accused, who told about the suffering of injury by the daughter of this accused. But in the cross examination, he has deposed that he never talked with husband of the accused till the day of this incident. So, testimony of this witness is self contradictory. So, it does not inspire any confidence.
46. Mr. J.P. Tiwari, has been examined as DW-7, who has deposed that he is working in Saroj Hospital since 1994 as X-ray Incharge and this witness has proved the X-ray Ex.DW7/D1 and its cover Ex.DW7/D2 of baby Tanya bearing no. 44296, which were recommended by Dr. Ravikant CMO. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and during his cross- examination, he has deposed that his education qualification is 12 th passed in Science Stream and he is also diploma holder in Radiology, which was of one year course and his duty hours on 18.06.2009 were from 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM. Since this witness has admitted that the X-ray vide film Ex.DW7/D1 was not done by him nor in his presence. So, this witness could not prove the X ray Ex DW-7/D1.
47. Mrs. Bhagyawati Singh, has been examined as DW-8, who has deposed that they were staying abroad since 1982 and she knows his daughter in law i.e. the accused Roopa Singh since 2000 and her son married with the accused in the year 2002 and it was love marriage and this marriage of the accused with her son was solemnized in the presence of parents of both the parties. After this marriage, the parents of her daughter in law accused Roopa Singh, did not FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 36/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
keep any relation with the accused. Accused Roopa used to make telephonic talk with her brother. The brother of the accused used to say to the accused that "TUMNE EK HAPPY FAMILY KO BARBAAD KAR DIYA HAI, MAIN TUMHE MAAF NAHI KARUNGA". But the brother of this accused has been examined as DW-6. He has neither stated so in his testimony. She has further deposed that in the year 2005, her daughter in law accused became pregnant and called her mother and gave birth to the twin daughters when she called her mother, the mother replied that why did she call her and further instructed to not call her again and disconnected the phone. She has further deposed that after the retirement of her husband in the year 2007, they came to India and her daughter got married in 2008. After the marriage, her daughter went to America and she was very good and close friend of accused. The accused used to share all her problems and other things with her daughter, who was not present at home because she went abroad. In the year 2009, when her daughter became pregnant, accused stopped talking with her. In the month of February 2009, the brother of the accused got married and when the accused attended the marriage, her mother told her that "you born on 27th of the February and on the same day, she had got her son married and brought a daughter in place of you". The accused was working as Resident Doctor in Baba Ambedkar Delhi and her residency was going to be expired in the month of October 2009 and at that point of time, they were constructing their clinic at Sant Nagar and they used to give their much of time at the place of construction and she used to feel uneasy/ uncomfort on hearing any untowards incident, she loved her twin daughters. She was worried about the future of the daughter and used to think in this atmosphere of Delhi how she would be able to upbring their twin daughters and on the day of the incident, this witness came in afternoon and she saw that accused was sleeping and this witness thought that accused was on leave and after taking a meal, this witness also slept and at about 04:00 PM, the accused and twin daughters were not at home. This witness has further deposed that accused used to take her daughters to the park and this witness thought accused FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 37/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
might have gone for the same and when this witness telephonically contacted the accused, she replied that "I will come back". This witness has further deposed that when accused did not return, this witness went to see her in the Park. When she was not seen her in the Park, this witness again contacted with her. This witness heard her screams and then, immediately, this witness contacted with her son Dr. Rajiv Ranjan, i.e. the husband of the accused who told her that he was there with his friend and would come in a little while. When Dr. Rajiv Ranjan came at home, he has told to this witness that he was going to search her. He thought that perhaps she has gone to Metro Walk. After sometime, her son told this witness that Dr. Roopa i.e. the accused was admitted in the Max Hospital. This witness has further deposed that her son Dr. Rajiv Ranjan, who is the husband of the accused told this witness, one day before the incident how some one can live with such person, who does not discuss anything with him. The accused was introvert in nature. She was concerned about her daughters and work only and further deposed that accused used to tell this witness that there was heavy work load in the hospital and she has to attend in one day, 30-35 delivery cases and 4-15 cases of Cesarean. She was so caring for twin daughters that even she used to prevent mosquitoes bite and to the best of her knowledge, she never skipped a single meal of her daughters. Before 8-9 days of the incident, her grand daughter Tanya suffered finger injury and accused had shown her to 4-5 doctors and this witness never seen in her life such a good mother. This witness was also cross examined and during her cross-examination, she has admitted that she had not attended the marriage of the brother of the accused and also admitted that there was no complaint from the Hospital against accused regarding her working. This witness has further admitted it to be correct that accused never behaved aggressively. She has further admitted that accused never quarreled with this witness prior to this occurrence. This witness has also admitted that accused is residing with this witness and this witness also came with the accused. This witness has denied that she has deposed falsely. Thus, it is clear that no FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 38/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
abnormality was observed by this witness in the accused and accused was discharging her duties perfectly in the hospital.
48. Prof. (Dr.) Nimesh G. Desai, Director of IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi has been examined as DW-9 and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
49. Ms. Neha Mahajan, has been examined as DW-10, who was the Primary Class Teacher in GD Goenka Public School, Sector-22, Rohini, in the year 2005 to year 2009, who has proved the original school diary (Almanac) of children of accused for the Session 2009-2010 of GD Goenka School Ex.DW10/A. She has identified her signatures at point A to X & Ex.DW10/B, she has also identified her signatures thereon at A to Y. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and during her cross-examination, she has admitted it to be correct that the communication with the parents of these students was done by this witness through these two diaries Ex.DW10/A & Ex.DW10/B. She has further admitted that most of the notes are in the handwriting of mother of these students. She has deposed that she does not remember whether she has ever met with the mother of these children or not.
50. Dr. Kultar Singh Malhotra, has been examined as DW-11, who has deposed that Dr. Roopa Singh (accused ) is the friend of his friend of his wife namely, Dr. Jasleen, who was also serving in Ambedkar Hospital in Delhi along with Dr. Roopa Singh, way back in the year 2009, he does not remember the exact date, she has received a telephonic call of his wife that her friend namely, Dr. Roopa Singh would come at his home to show her daughter, who had suffered some injury in her hand and on the same day, Dr. Roopa Singh had come at his home with her two daughters. He has further deposed that accused had shown this witness the medical prescriptions and X-ray of her daughters, as her daughter was getting treatment from another doctor and accused had come to take his second opinion. This witness has further deposed that he had seen FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 39/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
the X-ray of daughter of Dr. Roopa Singh and observed that there was no fracture in the finger of her daughter and he had told to accused that the treatment mentioned on the prescriptions of her daughter was fine and she should continue the same treatment. Accused was very much concern about the simple injury suffered by her daughter. This witness has further deposed that he knows the incident about the death of her children through his wife and he does not remember the exact date of bringing of the child at his home by accused, but, within two months from the said day, the incident of death of her children. This witness was asked whether the treatment of the injury suffered by the child of Dr. Roopa Singh could be done in any government hospital. He has replied that "Yes" and voluntarily stated that it could have been treated conservatively at her home. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and during his cross-examination, he has told that the age of both the children could be 5-6 years. This witness has further deposed that he did not check even his neighbours at home and only at the request of his wife, he had checked the child of Dr. Roopa Singh at his home. He has admitted that accused came to this witness with her children being affectionate towards them. This witness has denied that he has come to depose falsely as his wife was colleague of Dr. Roopa Singh (accused).
51. I have heard the ld. Counsels for the parties.
52. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that this is a case of deliberate murder, wherein, a qualified mother(Roopa Singh)(accused), who was serving in a Government Hospital, as Gynecologist, has committed the murder of her twin minor daughters aged about 3 years & 8 months that too in a preplanned manner, as this lady accused (Roopa Singh) had gone to the hotel City Park alongwith her two minor daughters, given her proof of her identity viz. photocopies of passport & PAN Card in the Hotel City Park and booked a room no. 601 and she asked to the employee of the hotel for arranging a Taxi FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 40/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
and accordingly, within few minutes, the Taxi came and she went to market and also to the shop of Chemist (Madhuban Pharmacy), purchased the injections of SUCOL NEON and when, she had gone to purchase the syringes/injections from Madhuban Pharmacy both the daughters of accused were made to sit in the Taxi and returned to the room of said Hotel and injected the same injections to her both daughters Tanya & Twinkle repeatedly with the intention to kill them and having knowledge that both of her daughters would die in all probabilities and after killing her two minor daughters, she had injected the injection to her own self in order to commit suicide. But, when, she was in influence of said injection, she had telephonically contacted three times to her husband Dr. Rajeev Ranjan, who has been examined as PW-7 and at the time of third call, the husband of the accused had observed some drowsiness in her voice and he has also asked to the accused, as to where was she and she told that she was in the hotel City Park and cousin of the husband of the accused had telephonically contacted at the reception and asked to them to go to Room No. 601 and told that accused Roopa needed medical help and the PW1 Anil Kumar had gone to the room, but, no response was found and in the meantime, another call was made on the reception of the hotel and while they were calling, the husband of this accused and his cousin and they had arrived in the said hotel and person sitting at the reception took them to the room no. 601 and despite of making efforts to open the door even with master key, it was not opened and it was broken in the presence of husband of accused and accused Roopa and her both daughters Tanya and Twinkle were found to be in unconscious condition. They were immediately taken to the Max Hospital by the husband of the accused namely Dr. Rajiv Ranjan (PW-7). He has further submitted that the MLRs of Twinkle & Tanya Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B and Ex. PW-4/C have been proved on record by the PW-4 Dr. Shivani Verma.
53. The Ld. APP for the State has further submitted that since this accused had booked a room i.e. 601 in the Hotel City Park and fact of booking of the FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 41/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
said room no. 601 has been proved by PW-1, 5 and 9 and further submitted that this accused has also admitted the fact of visiting to the said hotel in her statement recorded U/S 313 of Cr.PC and further submitted that Sh. Shauryavir Singh, the then SDM/Executive Magistrate had also recorded the statement of this accused and this accused had also admitted before the Executive Magistrate in her statement Ex.PW2/C that she had gone to the said hotel and further submitted that this accused had taken a Taxi and after check in the said hotel and the Taxi Driver has been examined as PW3 Kulbir Singh, who has proved on record that after taking his Taxi, this accused had also gone at the shop of Pharmacy from which, the injections of Scolin Neon & Syringes were purchased, which were administered by her to both of her daughters and this accused had also injected the injection herself and after some time, her both children lost their consciousness & expired and further submitted that PW4 Dr. Shivani, at the time of evidence, has proved the MLRs of Tanya, Twinkle & Roopa, the PW5 Vishal Mathur has also correctly identified to this accused in the court and deposed that this accused had booked the room no. 601 in the said hotel and submitted that facts of booking of a room & staying of the accused there along with her both daughters have been proved by PW1 Anil Kumar & PW5 Vishal Mathur who was working in the said hotel on the date of occurrence and the fact of taking this accused to the shop of Pharmacy has been proved by PW3 Kulbir Singh, who is taxi driver. He has further submitted that fact of purchasing of the injections of SUCOL Neon & syringes from Madhuban Pharmacy vide Cash Memo No. 5592 Ex. PW-6/B have been proved by Ashok Kumar Manchanda(PW-6), Kamal Kishor (PW-10) and Bhushan Mishra (PW-11) and on the dates of examination of these witnesses, the exemption from her personal appearance was sought and identification of the accused was not disputed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. He has further submitted that CCTV Footages in the said hotel have been proved that this accused had come in the said hotel and stayed there and bill of rent Ex. PW-1/E of the room in the said hotel has been proved by PW-1 and further FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 42/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
submitted that no doubt Dr. V. K. Jha PW13 Medical Officer has failed to tell the cause of death of Baby Tanya and Baby Twinkle. But as the external injuries deposed by this witness clearly manifests that marks of injections on the bodies of both the children are found and since on dated 24.01.2018, this witness has admitted the possibility of congestion in the organs of Baby Tanya and Baby Twinkle in view of overdosing of Succinyl Choline Chloride and recovery of the (empty bottle) of the Sucol injections has been affected from the said room of the Hotel. He has submitted that since this accused stayed in the room no. 601 of the said room of the hotel along with two children namely, Twinkle and Tanya and room was found to be bolted from inside and further submitted that this accused Roopa was lastly seen with her daughters namely, Twinkle and Tanya by her mother in law Ms Bhagyawati (DW-8) in her house and accused was lastly seen by PW-1 Anil Kumar, PW-9 Prabir Kumar Roy in the Hotel City Park with her daughters Baby Twinkle and Baby Tanya when both of her daughters were also staying with the accused in the said room of the hotel and thereafter, they got expired and deaths of both her children are unnatural and further submitted that when this accused and her both children were taken to the hospital by the husband of accused and cousin of husband of this accused to the Max Hospital, the PW23 had arrived in the room and recovered the Slippers, Empty Pouch of Madhuban Pharmacy, One Nokia Mobile Phone, Niddle & Syringes and bed sheet, blood stains and clothes of children also of accused, empty pouches, lady purse, wherein, PAN Card, Passport and some other documents were found, used Syringes along with niddle on a slab of bathroom of the said room, 02 empty vials of green colour were lying in dustbin, one empty wrapper were also lying in the dustbin and one empty vial have two syringes and blood samples of both the victim girl were seized(Ex.PW23/A seizure memo) and Inspector prepared rukka Ex.PW33/A and same was handed over to Constable Surender for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, the FIR was registered and submitted that since all these seized articles and seizure memo have been proved by the PW21 and FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 43/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
since Dr. Neeraj Sharma,(PW22) Junior Obs & Gynae, Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, PW28 Dr. Dolly Chawla and PW29 Dr. Vinita have been proved on record that this accused had properly discharged her duties in the hospital and PW27 Dr. A.K. Dewan, SGM has proved that this accused was serving in the said hospital since October, 2006 and this PW28, who had also worked with this accused never noticed any problem with the work of this accused in the said hospital and further submitted that husband of this accused i.e. Dr. Rajiv Ranjan (PW7), who has also deposed in the court that he had taken this accused, Baby Twinkle and Baby Tanya to the Hospital from room no. 601 of the said hotel and further submitted that this accused after administering the injections of Scolin Neon to the Tanya & Twinkle had telephonically contacted with her husband and Call Detail Record reveals that she had called to her husband PW7 on that day i.e. 01.07.2009 at 8:02 PM, 8:09 PM and 8:13 PM and after injecting to Twinkle & Tanya, she has also informed to her husband regarding the same and in view of the same, the PW7 had arrived in the Hotel and he had taken them to Max Hospital and conduct of this accused clearly manifests that this accused, who is a qualified doctor had taken her daughters Twinkle and Tanya to the hotel, booked the room no. 601 and the documents produced by DW9 clearly manifests that this accused was having problem in relation with her husband and her matrimonial life was disturbed since two weeks as told by this accused in the IHBAS and in view of some matrimonial dispute with her husband, this accused had taken the children to the said hotel, thereafter, she hired the taxi of Kulbir Singh(PW-3) who is the driver of the said taxi and accused purchased the injections of SUCOL Neon, which are generally use for the purpose of Anesthesia and repeatedly injected the same to Tanya and Twinkle to ensure their deaths and further submitted that report of FSL Ex.PW31/A has been proved by PW31 namely, Shri Narain, who has proved that in two glass vials Ex. PW-18/A and Ex. PW-18/B, which were recovered from the room no. 601 of said hotel, Succinyl Cholin Chloride were found and further submitted that all the incriminating evidences brought on FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 44/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
record by the prosecution go to prove the case of the prosecution that this accused had taken her two children namely, Twinkle and Tanya aged about 3 years & 8 months to the hotel and the presence of this accused along with her daughters in the said hotel is not denied and since this accused had injected SUCOL Neon to Twinkle and Tanya and as a result of which, both of children expired and the death of both the children are unnatural and incriminating circumstantial evidences manifest that this is the accused, who had administered, the injections and also injected herself and after purchasing of injections from Madhuban Pharmacy is well proved by PW-6 Ashok Kumar Manchanda, PW10 Kamal Kishor and PW11 Bhushan Mishra. DW-8 Ms. Bhagyawati Singh (Mother in law of accused) has deposed that she had telephonically contacted with accused when this old lady did not find accused, Twinkle and Tanya and accused had told her that she would come and she had misled to DW8 that she would return home but she did not return home and accused & her children were found in unconscious conditions in the room of the said hotel. He has further submitted that since this accused is a qualified MBBS/DGO doctor and she was working as gynecologist in the Government Hospital and further submitted that a lady is supposed to be more sensitive, DW9 has deposed that this accused was suffering from major depressive disorder and in his view, the act of killing by the accused to her two twin daughters because of severe depression and further submitted that since DW9 had put a hand of blessing on the head of accused in this court on the day, prior to his examination in this court, and from such gesture of DW9, it may be inferred that DW9, who is a qualified doctor, who is also Head of IHBAS had come to depose in favour of this accused and gave erroneous observation that this accused was suffering from major depressive disorder one week prior to the commission of murder, which cannot be relied upon, as during his cross- examination, this witness has admitted that he has expressed such opinion, on the basis of the information received by him from accused & her husband. He has further admitted that there is no medical science, which may assess the FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 45/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
exact period of depression, so, such opinion of this DW-9 cannot be relied upon that accused was suffering from depression one week prior to the murder of Tanya and Twinkle and such conduct of this witness is full of suspicion and doubts and in order to help this accused, this DW9 dared to speak lie in the Court. The Ld. APP for the State has further submitted that this DW9 has admitted that this accused is not suffering from Bipolar Disorder, Psychopathic Disorder or Schizophrenia. The DW9 has also produced document Ex.DW9/J dated 07.10.2010, which shows therein that there was disturbed interpersonal relationship of this accused with her husband, critical comments and on going verbal & physical abuse are also mentioned and it is also mentioned therein that there was problem to this accused in relation with her spouse. It is also mentioned therein that this accused has no past history or family history of psychiatric illness and another in document i.e. discharge summary produced by this witness (DW9) manifests that the column of this accused dated 29.04.2010 of past history of this accused, it is written that this this accused had attempted to suicide and allegedly killed her daughters after altercation at home, it is clear that such noting is done in the record of IHBAS, produced by this DW-9 on the information received from the accused & her husband. The Ld. APP for the State has further submitted that this accused took Tanya & Twinkle in the room no. 601 of Hotel City Park, went to the shop of Pharmacy Madhuban and purchased the injections of Sucol Neon and Syringes returned to the same room in hotel in the same taxi, which was hired by her, injected the same to her both daughters and also to herself and further submitted that if this accused was having any altercation at home or she was having any problem with her husband as told to Doctor of IHBAS or that if she was subjected to physical & mental torture as written in the documents of this accused prepared in IHBAS and produced by DW9. The act of killing baby Tanya & baby Twinkle cannot be justified as doctors of IHBAS written that this accused did not have any past history or family history of psychiatric illness and the accused has failed to prove that she was suffering from unsoundness of mind FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 46/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
and legal insanity is not proved. So, accused is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. So, this accused is liable to be convicted U/S 302 & 309 of IPC, as prosecution has discharged its burden of proving and prayed accordingly.
54. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that since this accused was working as Gynecologist and in view of over burden, she was having some sort of problem and further submitted that this accused was discharged from the Max Hospital on dated 06.07.2009 and it was mentioned in the discharge summary slip that this accused was in depression. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that this accused was suffering from major depressive disorder and in view of same, she was not in position to understand the nature of her act of commission of such crime and further submitted that the DW9 is the Head of IHBAS and he is expert and his opinion cannot be ignored and DW9 has deposed in the court that this accused was suffering from severe depressive disorder at least one week prior to the death of her twin daughters on 01.07.2009. So, such opinion of DW-9, who is director of IHBAS has to be relied upon and further submitted that this accused is entitled to get the benefit of U/S 84 of IPC and further submitted that PW7, who is husband of the accused has also deposed in the court that this accused was having love & affection and further submitted that even DW-8 Mrs. Bhagwati Singh, who is mother in law of this accused, had also deposed in the court that this accused solemnized the love marriage with PW7 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan, so, her family had stopped to meet her and in view of same, she was in some sort of depression and in view of work load, this accused remained under the depression, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that as per the statement of DW-9 Dr. Nimesh G. Desai, this accused is suffering from depressive disorder and further submitted that in view of the same, this accused had attempted to commit suicide and further submitted that as per the opinion of Dr. Modi, the patient who suffers from depressive phase, kills to the FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 47/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
relatives. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that since in the case in hand, FIR has been registered on the basis of Rukka prepared by the IO and thereafter, IO had investigated the matter, so, as per the judgment of the Megha Singh Vs. State of Harayana MANU/SC/0466/1995, the investigation is faulty. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that since the IO is the complainant in the present case, so, his investigation is not fair and he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Megha Singh Vs. State of Harayana MANU/SC/0466/1995, so, this accused Roopa Singh is liable to be acquitted on this ground.
55. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has also submitted that this accused was discharged from the Max Hospital on dated 06.07.2009 and at the time of her discharge from the Max Hospital, it was mentioned in the discharge summary of this accused was recommended counseling sessions by clinical psychology and the IO did not take her to any Psychiatrist and this accused was sent in judicial custody and further submitted that the IO has concocted a false story and alleged in the FIR that this accused had administered poisonous injections to her children i.e. two daughters of the accused with the intention to kill her and also injected herself to commit suicide. He has further submitted that SDM has been examined as PW2, who had recorded the statement of this accused on dated 04.07.2009 and this PW2 SDM was called by the IO for recording the statement of the accused and further submitted that this IO did not investigate the matter in fair manner and further submitted that from the documents i.e. discharge summary and of the Max Hospital & from the letter written by the Jail authorities to the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and also by the various letters written by the doctors of IHBAS to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, it is clear that this accused was having suicidal tendency and further submitted that even the report of the medical board constituted in the IHBAS reveals that this accused was suffering from depression and further submitted that on the regaining of her consciousness, FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 48/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
this accused had asked to the PW15, as to where were her daughters and further submitted that this accused was caring mother, as once, the finger of her daughter was pressed in a door, the accused had shown her daughter to four doctors, who have been examined as defence witnesses which shows that she was most caring mother and DW8 Bhagyawati had also disclosed that she was a caring mother and at the same time, he has also submitted that PW13 Dr. V. K. Jha, who has deposed in the court that he had conducted the postmortem of the bady Twinkle & Tanya. But, he failed to tell the causes of deaths of both of the children and further submitted that he is not disputing the testimony of PW1 and admitted that this accused had gone with her two children in the Hotel and lived in the said hotel, but, she is not aware as to what had happened with her daughters and further submitted that even at the time of the recording of the statement of the accused by the SDM on 04.07.2009, the accused was not fit for giving any statement on that day that she was taken in the same hotel, but, she failed to tell about the occurrence and further submitted that since the charges U/S 302/309 of IPC were framed against this accused. So, it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts that this accused had attempted to commit suicide and this accused had murdered her two daughters, but, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that this accused had committed the murder of her twin daughters, namely, Twinkle & Tanya and causes of deaths of both children could not be cleared and motive to commit the offences are also not proved and further submitted that mensrea to commit murder is also not proved.
56. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that since in the case hand the prosecution has failed to prove the causes of the deaths of both the daughters, motive & mensrea to commit the murder and further submitted that PW-15 Asha has admitted that IO Yashpal had prepared some document in the Police Station and also submitted that as per the report Ex.PW26/A no blood of deceased has been detected on the bed sheet and PW28 Dr. Dolly Chawla has FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 49/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
proved that this accused used to discharge her duties diligently and Dr. Vinita PW29 has also proved that work performance was good and further submitted that PW33 Inspector Yashpal has also admitted during his cross-examination that this accused Roopa was not fit for making statement on dated 06.07.2009, thus, the testimony of this witness is contrary to the testimony of SDM, who has been examined as PW2, who had recorded the statement of this accused on 04.07.2009. He has further submitted that accused was a caring mother and it is proved by DW-1 Dr. Raju Easwaran, as this accused had taken her daughter Tanya to this doctor and also to Dr. Ravi Kant (DW2) and Dr. Kultar Singh Malhotra(DW) and also submitted that from the testimony of Dr. Preeti(DW3), it is proved on record that she was caring mother and further submitted that Dr. Nidhi Tiwari (DW4) has also proved that accused used to go to her home for feeding her children from the hospital and further submitted that similarly, Dr. Seema, who has been examined DW5 has also proved that she was bit forget full about 15-20 days prior to this incident and further submitted that DW6, who is brother of this accused, who has proved that this accused was caring mother and from his testimony, it is proved that mother of this accused was not happy with the love marriage of this accused with Dr. Rajeev Ranjan and DW7 had proved the X-ray of baby Tanya and DW8 is the mother-in-law of this accused, who has also deposed that this accused is a caring mother. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that this accused is socially deprived because of love marriage with Dr. Rajeev Ranjan(PW7) and she was also deprived from love and affection from her parental family and in view of the same, she was in tension and further submitted that in view of tension, she remained under stress. Since in the case in hand, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive to commit the offence and this accused was socially boycotted and it is well proved by Mrs. Bhagyawati, who is mother in law of accused and DW6 i.e. brother of accused and submitted that from medical document of IHBAS, it is clear that this accused was suffering from depressive disorder and further submitted that since PW22, PW29, DW4 & DW5 have FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 50/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
proved on record that this accused was an efficient doctor, she was working as Gynecologist in the BSA Hospital and further submitted that testimony of DW- 9 is trustworthy, as he has deposed in his examination in chief, that this accused was suffering from major depressive disorder, one week prior to this accused. So, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of Section 84 of IPC and prayed for acquittal of the accused. Ld. counsel for the accused has relied upon the certain judgments as Narsibhai Dahyabhai Kanazariya Vs. State of Gujarat MANU/GJ/0243/2009, Bolabhai Hirabhai Vs. State of Gujarat MANU/GJ/0406/2000 & Ratanlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1971 AIR 778, SCR (3)251, 1970 SCC (3)533, Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2000 & Deepak Bapurao Yedage Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/2418/2015. A.Steephen Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police R6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station Chennai CRL.A.No.106/2012. Passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as ......X....Vs. State of NCT of Delhi CRL A 1308/2015 & CRL M(B)8293/2015 & Shanti Devi Vs. State MANU/DE/0029/1968. Babul Boro @ Babulal Boro Vs. State of Assam MANU/GH/0830/2011. S. Sunil Sandeep Vs. State of Karnataka MANU/KA/0078/1993. Unniri Kannan Vs. State MANU/KE/0008/1960. Vivekanand Mishra Vs. State of Bihar MANU/BH/0370/2007 & Megha Singh vs. State of Harayana MANU/SC/0466/1995.
57. In rebuttal thereof, the Ld. APP for the State has submitted that since this is a serious offence of murders committed by the accused and there is no bias or partiality opted by the IO and further submitted that only for the reason that the FIR has been registered on Rukka prepared by the IO, the accused cannot be acquitted and he has relied relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case "S. Jeevanatham Vs. State though Inspector of Police Tamil Nadu 2004 CRI. L. J. 3834" and further submitted FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 51/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
that in view of the judgment "Megha Singh Vs. State of Harayana MANU/SC/0466/1995" is discussed in the said judgment "S. Jeevanatham Vs. State though Inspector of Police Tamil Nadu 2004 CRI. L. J. 3834" and since, there is no legal infirmity in the investigation, so, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "S. Jeevanatham Vs. State though Inspector of Police Tamil Nadu 2004 CRI. L. J. 3834", this accused cannot be liable to be acquitted and prayed for convicting the accused U/S 302/309 of IPC only for the reason that IO is the complainant. The Ld. APP for the State has also stated that the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, are not applicable to the case and submitted that facts of Gyarsibai Vs. State of M.P.1953 Cr.LJ 588 were similar to the facts of this case.
58. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
59. Perusal of the record shows that the DD No. 56B Ex. PW-21/A was registered on dated 01.07.2009 at 10:10 PM, wherein, it was mentioned that an information was received that in the City Park Hotel in Pitampura, few persons were staying in a room and it was asked to open the said room, as there was something wrong therein and when, the door of the said room was broken, three persons were found in unconscious condition, whose relatives had taken them to the Max Hospital and DD no. 56-B was marked to SI Sh. R. D. Sharma and when Sh. R. D. Sharma along with Ct. Surender arrived in the room no. 601 of Hotel City Park, they found that door of the said room was found to be broken and in the said room, the toys of the children were lying and on the sofa, table other clothes of the lady and children were found lying scattered and there was bed-sheet of white colour on the bed and blood stains were also found thereon and 03 used syringes were also found on the slab in the bathroom of the said room and one used syringe and two unused syringes wrapper were also lying there, two empty vials of the injections were also lying FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 52/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
(wherein small quantity of medicine was also found) whereon, Succinyl Choline Chloride IP sucol for I.M. /I.B./I.V. infusion used NEON was written and in the dustbin which was lying in the corner of the bathroom, wrapper of empty syringe was lying and ladies purse was also lying on right side of double bed, which was containing documents and articles of Roopa and on the back of the double bed, an envelope of Khaki colour was lying, whereon MADHUBAN Pharmacy was written and another empty envelope of Madhuban Pharmacy was lying on the cloth which were put on the Sofa and it was revealed that all the unconscious persons found in the room were sent to the Hospital and Sh. R. D. Sharma left Ct. Surender in the Hotel and went to the Hospital and found that on MLR of Twinkle bearing no. 1361 and MLR of Tanya bearing no. 1362 alleged history of poisoning followed by "unconsciousness and declared clinically dead at 10:20 PM and on the MLR No. 1363 of accused Roopa Singh (as told by her husband), alleged history of self injection of some unknown drug and unfit for statement was written. And MLRs were obtained and dead bodies of Twinkle & Tanya were deposited in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital through Ct. Rishipal and it was also revealed that Dr. Roopa Singh accused was married with Dr. Rajeev on 21.08.2001 and the intimation to the SDM, Saraswati Vihar was also given and crime team & photographer were also called and the place of occurrence was photographed and inspected and as per the order of SDM, Saraswati Vihar, the Executive Magistrate, Kanjhawala was apprised about the facts who arrived at the spot and investigation was initiated and accused was found unfit for making statement and from the MLR of accused, it was revealed that Dr. Roopa Singh is a professional doctor, who had deliberately and with the intention to kill them administered the poisonous injections to her daughters, who had expired and accused was unfit for making statement and FIR was registered U/S 302/309 of IPC.
60. Dr. Rajiv Ranjan had taken the accused Roopa & his daughters baby FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 53/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
Tanya & Twinkle in the Max Hospital on dated 01.07.2009 soon after this occurrence. Dr. Rajeev Ranjan, who is the husband of the accused, has been examined as PW-7. He has deposed that accused is his wife and on dated 01.07.2009, he returned to his house from the hospital at 05:00 PM and took meal and went to sleep and he got up at about 06:00 PM and went to meet his colleague and then, his wife i.e. accused Roopa Singh & his children were not at home. He has further deposed that he thought that the accused had taken the children to the park as usual and at about 08:00 PM, he received a call from the accused and at that time, he was at Pitampura and he heard the talks of his children and the sound of TV on the telephone and this witness told his wife i.e. the accused that he was with his colleague and would return home after some time and after about 15-20 minutes, he received second call from this accused and she told that she was not at home. This witness did not inquire from her, as to where was she and such conduct of this witness shows that something was wrong between this witness and accused. So, he did not bother to ask the accused Dr. Roopa Singh as to where was she? This witness has further deposed that he received third call from the accused at about 08:30 PM and accused cried and asked to this witness, as to where was he and even after hearing the cries of accused, this witness did not ask the accused about reason of her crying. This also manifest that there was something wrong in the relations of this witness and accused and even after hearing cries of the accused, this witness did not ask the accused as to where was she ? This witness told that he was returning and he immediately returned to his house to Sector-11 (where, he was residing at that time) and when this witness did not find his wife i.e. accused & his children at home, he went to Metro Walk in Sector-11, Rohini and he received a call from the accused and her speech was slurring and she appeared drowsy and on his repeated asking, she told him that she was in hotel City Park and was facing difficulty in breathing and he went to hotel city park with his cousin Vijay Kumar and in the meanwhile, Vijay Kumar made call at Hotel City Park to confirm about his wife and he was FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 54/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
informed that she was in room no. 601 and he instructed them to open the door of room no. 601 and in case of any medical emergency, to call the Ambulance immediately to rush her to hospital and when they reached there, he found that door of room no. 601 was broken open by the hotel staff and on entering in the room, he saw that accused Roopa and his both daughters were lying unconscious. He with the help of his cousin, took his wife and daughters to max hospital for treatment and the doctor at Max Hospital tried to resuscitate his daughters, but failed and the accused was shifted to ICU. He has also deposed that on dated 05.07.2009, he had identified the dead bodies of his daughters namely, Twinkle & Tanya in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and after the postmortem, their dead bodies were handed over to him vide receipt of handing over of dead bodies Ex.PW7/A and then, Ld. APP for the State had sought permission to cross examine this witness, as his testimony was not complete and after hearing, the Ld. Predecessor was pleased to allow to the Ld. APP for the State to cross examine this witness and during his cross- examination, he has denied that door was broken in the presence of this witness. He was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW7/A recorded by the IO, wherein it is stated by this witness that his wife had taken the injections of some unknown drug and same was also given to his daughters resulting into unconsciousness. But this witness has denied to have given such statement. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross examination, he has deposed that accused Dr. Roopa is MBBS & D.G.O. and she is very non expressive person, sensitive, non-complaining, very sincere and hand working. He has admitted that his marriage was love marriage with the accused and there was no contact between accused and her parents and her parents did not visit the house of the accused even at the time of birth of his children and admitted that they visited the house of parents of this accused in October-2008 & February-2009 and also deposed that parents of the accused had ignored them and brother of the accused was very bitter about their marriage and he knows to this accused since 1996 and FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 55/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
got married with this accused in 2002 and also deposed that he was staying away from her since June 2006 till June 2008, as he was doing his post- graduation and relation of this accused with her children were excellent and also deposed that prior to this incident on dated 18.06.2009, one of his daughter's finger was crushed in the door and she took opinion of five doctors and on that day, she was on duty and every doctor suggested that there was nothing and it was a mere superficial injury, she met many doctor and even with the financial constraints, the accused had admitted to her both children in G. D. Goenka School and also deposed that this accused had very few friends, namely, Neeraj Sharma and Preeti and most of the time and this accused was very close to his sister Rajni Rai and further deposed that she was on ad-hoc job, which was to be finished in October, 2009. Since this witness is the husband of the accused and he is living with the accused even after this occurrence. So, he has resiled from his previous statement Ex. PW-7/A recorded by the IO under section 161 Cr PC that he had told to the Doctor in Max Hospital at the time of admission of this accused and Baby Twinkle and Baby Tanya that this accused had injected herself and also gave the injections of some unknown drug to his two daughters and MLR of this accused Ex.PW4/C reveals the history of self injecting by this accused and MLR of Tanya Ex.PW4/A & MLR of Twinkle Ex.PW4/B also reveal history of poisoning followed by unconsciousness and Dr. Shivani (PW-4) has proved the MLR of this accused, as well as, the MLRs of baby Tanya & Twinkle.
61. Sh. Anil Kumar, has been examined as PW-1, who has deposed that on 01.07.2009, he was working in Hotel City Park, as Front Office Assistant and on that date he was performing his duties in the evening shift and at about 5:30- 6:00 PM, this accused Roopa Singh (who was correctly identified by the witness in the court) alongwith her two children came in the said hotel and made an inquiry for booking a room therein and then this witness had shown her two room and she preferred to book the junior suite and this witness had FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 56/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
asked her, as to for which date she wanted to book the room. She told that she wanted to book the room for that day and this witness had given her registration form to fill up the same and asked for the photo I.D. and this accused had given him the PAN Card and the passport and he kept the photocopy of her passport in the said hotel and the room No. 601 was alloted to this accused and she was asked to pay the rent for the said room and she had given the credit card and this witness swiped the card for a sum of Rs. 13,000/-, as rent for the said room and gave the key of the said room to the accused and the accused had asked for a Taxi, as she wanted to go for shopping and this witness told him that the Taxi would be available in half an hour and the accused alongwith her children went to the allotted room and after about 25-30 minutes the Taxi came and the accused was informed about the arrival of the Taxi in the Hotel and after about five minutes, the accused alongwith her children went in the Taxi and the accused returned in the Hotel at about 7:30 PM with her children and she was carrying baby toy and went to her room. At about 8:00 PM, the colleague of this witness namely Vishal, who was also on duty in the hotel with him, received a phone call on the reception from a telephone, last digits of which were 909 and Vishal told him that the caller had told him that his Bhabhi was staying in room no. 601 and asked him to go in the room immediately and to open the room, as she needed some medical assistance. Vishal went to the room no. 601 to inquire about the problem and at the same time this witness contacted the Chief Security Officer of the hotel to check, if, there was any problem and after about five minutes Vishal informed to this witness by Intercom that no one was opening the door of the room, which was locked from inside. Then, this witness sent some person with the master key. But, the door could not be opened even with the master key and in the meantime, this witness had received the phone call from a phone, last digits of which were 405 and the caller had asked him whether had he opened the door of the said room and this witness informed the caller that the boy had already been sent to the said room and when, the call was being made, the FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 57/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
caller came at the reception and asked this witness about the way, which leads to the room no. 601 and this witness had told him the way leading to the room no. 601 and the caller was followed by 2-3 more persons to the said room. At about 9:30 PM, he saw those persons were carrying a lady and bodies of two children and a security guard was also accompanying them. This witness provided the car from the hotel to rush the lady and her children to the hospital. This witness has also deposed that on next day, the SDM came to the hotel and asked him about the incident and his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded. This witness has proved the registration card of the hotel as Ex. PW1/B and receipt bearing No. 408 for the Taxi charges for an amount of Rs. 250/- in the name of accused which is Ex. PW1/C and computer generated receipt of Rs. 13,000/- of the rent of the room is Ex. PW1/D and computerized room bill of room no. 601 is Ex. PW1/E. Ld. Addl. P. P. for the State had sought permission to ask leading question from this witness from the Ld. Predecessor of this court and after hearing, Ld. Predecessor of this court was pleased to allow to the Ld. APP for State to ask leading question from this witness and on asking of leading question, this witness had admitted it to be correct that the first call was received by Vishal at 9:00 PM and the complete phone no. thereof was 9910896909. It is pertinent to mention here that this mobile phone no. 9910896909 was being used by Dr. Rajeev Ranjan at that time, as per call detail record brought on the record. He has further admitted it to be correct that the second call was attended by this witness from the telephone no. 9899933405. This witness was cross examined by counsel for the accused and during his cross examination, he has deposed that his statement was recorded at the reception of the hotel and he met to the IO outside the court room. He has admitted that at the time of cross examination, he met to the IO outside the court room, but, he has denied the suggestion given by counsel for the accused that he has deposed at the instance of the IO. He has admitted that he had stated to the police that after about five minutes, Vishal informed to this witness through intercom that no one was opening the door, which was locked from FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 58/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
inside. He has also admitted that he had not stated before the police that he had sent some person with the master key to open the door. He has also admitted that he did not visit the room no. 601 and admitted that he did not hand over the Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/E to the police. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely. Thus, from the unrebutted and unimpeached testimony of PW1, it is proved that accused had taken her two children in the hotel on dated 01.07.2009 and booked the Room No. 601 in the Hotel City Park and accused stayed in the said hotel with her two daughters and husband of this deceased Rajiv Ranjan had told at the reception of the hotel that the accused needed medical assistance and instructed to open the room no. 601 and after breaking the door of the room no. 601, this accused and her two children were brought out. They were in unconscious condition and this witness had lastly seen the children of this accused alive with this accused.
62. Whereas, Sh. Vishal Mathur, has been examined as PW-5, who has correctly identified to the accused Roopa and deposed that on dated 01.07.2009, he was working as front office assistant at Hotel City Park and on that day, he was working in the evening shift and at about 06:00 PM, the accused Roopa, came with two children and wanted to book a room and this accused had seen 2-3 rooms in the hotel and she had booked one junior Suite No. 601 and they have completed the check-in formalities and after check-in, she asked for taxi for local visit. Accordingly, they arranged a taxi for her from a nearby taxi stand. The accused left the hotel with her children in the taxi at about 06:30 PM and this accused along with her children returned after about one hour and this accused was having some goods, which were sent to her room through driver. He has further deposed that at about 09:00 PM, he received a call from one Vijay and deposed that he could not remember his mobile phone number, but it was in his caller ID and he gave the same to the SDM, who had recorded his statement and Mr. Vijay told to this witness that he was unable to contact Ms. Roopa, who was staying in room no. 601 and also FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 59/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
told him that she was in immediate need of Medical assistance. This witness had tried to contact in the room on intercom, but, there was no response and then, this witness immediately informed the security Manager Rakesh Sharma and this witness rushed to the floor to open the room. Firstly, this witness knocked the door, but, no one answered and they also tried to open the lock with Master Key, which they had in the house keeping Department but, the door could not be opened, as it was closed from inside and in the meanwhile, the relatives of accused came and insisted to break the door, as accused needed immediate medical assistance and therefore at their instance, the door was broken. This witness has further deposed that on entering in the room, they found that accused Roopa and her two daughters were lying unconscious on the bed and they were taken to Max Hospital and on the next day, his statement Ex.Pw2/A was recorded by SDM. This witness had identified his signature at point C thereof. He had handed over to certain documents i.e. Registration card no. 0028202 in original, paid out receipt no. 408, taxi fare receipt, and original receipt of room bill and this witness had seen the aforesaid documents on the judicial file, which are Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/E. He has also identified his signature on memo of seizure of the same Ex. PW5/A at point A and then, the Ld. APP for the State had sought the permission to ask leading question to this witness and the Ld. Predecessor of this court, after hearing was pleased to allow to the Ld. APP for the State to ask the leading question and this witness has admitted that telephone call was received from Mr. Vijay from mobile no. 9910896909 and he gave the same number in his statement to the SDM and this mobile phone number was used by Dr. Rajeev Ranjan at that time as per call detail record. This witness was also cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that this witness along with Rakesh Sharma, Security Officer and one chowkidar Bahadur went to the room and found the door was closed from inside and further deposed that the accused checked in, in his presence and he did not notice any abnormal behaviour in the accused and he did not remember the time when the relatives FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 60/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
arrived at the hotel. This witness has denied that the door of the said room was broken open before the arrival of the relatives. He has further denied that he is tutored by the IO or that he has deposed falsely. Thus, from the unimpeached testimony of this witness, it is proved on the record that accused Roopa took the room no. 601 in the said Hotel on 01.07.2009 and stayed therein with her two daughters and call was received in the hotel, from the phone number of the husband of this accused who told that accused needed immediate medical assistance and this witness had also lastly seen the two daughters of this accused alive with this accused and after breaking open the door, when the accused and her two daughters were brought out then this accused and her two daughters were unconscious. The testimony of this witness is consistent, cogent and unimpeached. So, it is relied upon.
63. Whereas, Mr. Parbir Kumar Roy has been examined as PW-9, who has deposed that in the year 2009, he was working as clerk at the reception of the city park hotel and on dated 01.07.2009 at about 05/05:15 pm, one lady by the name Roopa Kopuri came at the reception along with two small children and she was talking with Mr. Vishal Mathur, front office assistant for arranging room in the said hotel and she booked a junior suite in the hotel and deposited an amount of Rs. 13000/- through credit card and she was given room no. 601 and at about 08:30 PM, he came to know that some relatives of the said lady customer had arrived at the hotel and the said lady was shifted to hospital by her relatives and on dated 03.07.2009, police officials came in the hotel and he had handed over to the police registration card, ID proof of customer, one ID proof of her hospital, charge slip. The police officials also obtained CD from him and further deposed that he could identify the said lady (but, on date of recording of examination in chief of this witness, the accused had sought exemption from her personal appearance and her counsel had stated that the identity of the accused is not disputed) and this witness has proved his signatures on the seizure memo of the CD Ex.PW9/A and also proved the said FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 61/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
CD Ex.PW9/1, which was handed over by him to the police. This witness was also cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross- examination, he has admitted that there was no mark on the CD handed over him by the IO, so, he cannot identify the same. He has denied that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the IO. Thus, the presence of this accused with her daughters in the hotel City Park is well proved by this witness and from the unrebutted and impeached testimony of this witness, it is proved on the record that this accused had taken the room no. 601 in the said Hotel and her children were also seen alive alongwith this accused Roopa by this witness also.
64. Whereas, Sh. Kulbir Singh, Taxi Driver has been examined as PW-3 , who has deposed that he is driver of Taxi by profession and on 02.07.2009, he received a telephonic call from hotel City Park. Accordingly, he went there with his taxi and thereafter at about 06:15 PM, he left the hotel with one lady and her two children for SM Store, Ashiana. He went to Mahavir Hospital, as per direction of said lady, where, he parked his taxi in the parking of Mahavir Hospital and she went to the shop of pharmacy, after leaving the children in the taxi and after sometime, she returned and this witness had brought them back to hotel and he took the fare of Rs. 250 from the counter of hotel city park and thereafter he returned to his house. This witness has further deposed that he had received the telephonic call from the police and police had called him the hotel City Park and on his arrival in the hotel, his statement Ex.PW2/B was recorded by SDM on 02.07.2009. He has also identified his signature thereon at point B and then, the Ld. APP for the State had sought permission from the Ld. Predecessor of this court to ask the leading question and after hearing, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court allowed to the Ld. APP for State to ask leading question and on asking of the same, he has admitted it to be correct that he was called with his Taxi in hotel on 01.07.2019 and he took the passenger i.e. a lady and her two children on the same day and this witness was also cross FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 62/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has admitted that he arrived in the Hotel City Park on calling of police at about 09:30 PM on 01.07.2007 and he remained there for 2-3 hours and thereafter, he was called by the police on 06.07.2009 and he was never called by police except the above two occasions. He has admitted that he did not issue any receipt of payment of Rs. 250/- and he did not sign any register in the hotel for receipt of the amount. He has denied that he has depose falsely. Thus, from the unimpeached testimony of this prosecution witness, it is proved that on dated 01.07.2007, this witness took the accused & her two daughters in his Taxi from Hotel City Park to S.M. Store and thereafter at Mahavir Hospital and then, he took them in his taxi in the same hotel.
65. Whereas, Ashok Kumar Manchanda has been examined as PW-6, who has deposed that he is running a chemist's shop in the name Madhuban Pharmacy, who has testified that on 01.07.2009 at about 07:00 PM, accused Dr. Roopa Singh had come at his shoop and purchased two injections Sucol Neon and few syringes of 10 ml., 05 ml and 02 ml. respectively vide cash memo no. 5592 of book no. 56 and further deposed that on dated 07.07.2009, the accused came at his shop with IO and a lady constable and pointed out at his shop saying that she had purchased the injections and syringes from his shop. He also told to the IO that same were purchased from his shop by accused Dr. Roopa vide cash memo no. 5592 and police seized his bill book no. 56 bearing Sr. No. 5501 to 5600 vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A and carbon copy of cash memo no. 5592, vide which, the injections and syringes were sold to accused and further deposed that police had prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW6/C. He has also identified his signature thereon at point A and bill amount for the sale of injections and syringes was Rs. 164.50/-. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross- examination, he has admitted that he is a Pharmacist and he usually sits at the shop from 10:00 AM/10:30 AM and remained upto 08:00 PM and thereafter, FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 63/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
his other partner used to sit for the night hours. This witness has denied that he was briefed by the IO outside the court before the recording of his testimony and this witness has also deposed that this accused had also shown her identity card to this witness prior to the purchasing of medicines and voluntarily deposed that this accused used to visit their shop to purchase medicines earlier also and further deposed that IO had prepared the documents while, siting in the chamber of Ultrasound, which is at a distance of 10-15 feet from his shop. He has also deposed that he cannot say that on 01.07.2009, how many clients were attended by him or that how many receipts, were prepared by him. He has denied that he has deposed falsely. Since, on the date of recording of the testimony of this witness, the accused Roopa Singh had sought the exemption from the personal appearance & identity of the accused was not disputed by the Ld. Counsel for this accused and from the unimpeached testimony of this witness, it is proved on record that the accused Roopa had purchased the Sucol Neon injections and syringes vide cash memo no. 5592 Ex.PW6/B from the Madhuban Pharmacy and I have no ground to disbelieve the testimony of this witness.
66. Whereas, Kamal Kishore has been examined as PW-10, who has testified that he is working in Madhuban Pharmacy and a chemist shop is there in the Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital Sector 14, Madhuban Chowk, Delhi and at about 07/07:30 PM, a lady had come on their chemist's shop and told her name as Dr. Roopa and gave prescription of Sucol injection two 10 ml. Syringes, four syringes of 5 ml. And two syringes of 02 ml. of Saroj Hospital. He has also deposed that the owner of the said shop, namely, Sh Ashok Manchanda (PW-6) asked to this witness to hand over the goods to the said lady and this witness took out the injections & syringes and gave it to Mr. Ashok Manchanda, who gave the same to Dr. Roopa and Mr. Bhushan Mishra working on the shop had prepared the bill of Rs. 160/- or Rs.170/- and he does not remember the exact amount. He has also deposed that he could identify the Dr. Roopa (but, on date FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 64/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
of recording of examination in chief of this witness, the accused had sought exemption from her personal appearance and her counsel had stated that the identity of the accused is not disputed). This witness was also cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he cannot say the number of persons visited their shop for the purchasing of medicines and also deposed that Dr. Roopa was alone, when, she had visited the shop. He has denied that Dr. Roopa did not show any prescription slip for the above said injections and syringes or that he has deposed falsely. Thus, from the unimpeached testimony of this witness also, it is also proved that accused had purchased the Sucol Injections and syringes from the Madhuban Pharmacy.
67. Whereas, Mr. Bhushan Mishra, has been examined as PW-11, who has deposed that in the year 2009, he was working in Madhuban Pharmacy, chemist shop in Bhagwan mahavir Hospital sector 14, Rohini and on dated 01.07.2009 at about 07:30 PM, one lady came to their shop and told her name as Roopa and she had shown him a medical prescription of Doctor from Saroj Hospital and she told to the owner of the shop namely, Ashok Manchanda to give Succol injection of Neon company and this witness had issued bill no. 5592 Ex.PW6/B in respect of two injections of Sucol, two syringes of 2 ml. Four syringes of 5 ml. And two syringes of 10 ml. and he has seen the bill Ex.PW6/G, which was issued by this witness to the customer Roopa. He has further deposed that he handed over bill book containing the aforesaid bill to the police. He could identify the said lady to whom, he had sold the injections & syringes, if shown to him (but, on date of recording of examination in chief of this witness, the accused had sought exemption from her personal appearance and her counsel had stated that the identity of the accused is not disputed). This witness was cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross examination, he has admitted that bill no. 5593 was prepared by him. He has also admitted it to be correct that on bill, the batch FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 65/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
number is not clear and legible. He has further admitted it to be correct that in bill no. 5593, the batch number is legible and correct. This witness has deposed that name of the doctor was not mentioned on the prescription of the Saroj Hospital. He has denied that no prescription was shown to this witness. He has further denied that he has deposed falsely. Thus, from the unimpeached testimony of this witness also it is proved on the record that Dr. Roopa had purchased Sucol injections & syringes from the Madhuban Pharmacy.
68. Whereas, Dr. V. K. Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital, Delhi, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead bodies of both the deceased, namely, Twinkle & Tanya has been examined as PW-13, who has testified that on dated 05.07.2009, he was posted as Medical officer at Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi and on that day, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Tania, aged 3 years 8 months D/o Rajiv Ranjan Singh and the dead body was sent by Inspector Yashpal Singh of PS Maurya Enclave through Ct. Rishi Raj. This witness has given the general description as under:-
General Description: Clothes worn by deceased - Frock & Nicker. Built of the body was moderate, rigor mortis passed off, postmortem staining was present at back. Eyes were partially opened, Conjunctiva was congested and cornea was hazy. Mouth was closed, tongue was inside. He observed following external injuries on the body of deceased: Injection mark over left dorsum of hand, Injection mark on left wrist outer aspect, Injection mark on left cubital fossae.
On internal examination, brain and other visceras were congested and stomach was containing undigested food. After postmortem examination, he opined the cause of death as pending till chemical analysis report of viscera is received. Time since death was approximately four days and total number of inquest papers were 27 which were returned along with PM report to the IO. His detailed PM report of Tanya is Ex.PW13/A and he has identified his signature thereon at point A. This witness preserved clothes, blood and Viscera, two skin pieces from injection site with control, pieces of lung and brain for FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 66/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
histopathology. On the same day, he also conducted postmortem on the body of Twinkle aged 3 years 8 months D/o Rajiv Ranjan Singh and the body was sent by Inspector Yashpal Singh of PS Maurya Enclave through Ct. Rishi Raj. General Description: Clothes worn by deceased - Frock and Nicker. Built of the body was moderate, rigor mortis passed off, postmortem staining was present at back. Eyes were partially open. Conjunctiva was congested and cornea was hazy. Mouth was closed, tongue was inside. He observed following external injuries on the body of deceased: Injection mark on right wrist inner aspect, Injection mark on right cubital fossae, Injection mark on left cubital fossae.
On internal examination, brain and other visceras were found to be congested and stomach was containing undigested food. After postmortem examination, he opined the cause of death as pending till chemical analysis report of viscera was received. Time since death was approximately four days and total number of inquest papers were 27 which were returned along with PM report to the IO. His detailed PM report is Ex.PW13/B. He has identified his signature thereon at point A. He preserved clothes, blood and viscera, two skin pieces from injection site with control, pieces of lung and brain for histopathology. This witness has further deposed that on 13.07.2013, the IO Inspector Yashpal Singh had moved two applications seeking final opinion regarding cause of death of deceased Twinkle and deceased Tanya, both daughters of Sh. Rajeev Ranjan along with the photocopies of chemical analysis report received from FSL and photocopies of PM reports of deceased Twinkle and Tanya. This witness has gone through the PM reports which were prepared by him and he co-related the PM reports with the FSL result, he opined that no definite opinion regarding cause of death of Tanya and Twinkle can be given and his subsequent opinions are Ex.PW13/C & Ex.PW13/D and both were signed by him at points A. This witness was recalled after allowing the application U/S 311 of Cr.PC and on dated 04.01.2017, this witness had deposed that Succinilyne Choline Chloride FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 67/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
is a muscle relaxant and is used as anesthetic agent and about other details of Succinilyne Choline Chloride, can be better explain by an Anesthetist, but, he can say that its over dose cause paralysis of respiratory muscles also. He had observed in his postmortem reports already Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B congestion of internal organs which is a common symptom of death by asphyxia i.e. lack of oxygen in the body and brain. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross examination, he has admitted that after considering the entire record, he had opined in Ex.PW13/C & Ex.PW13/D that no definite opinion regarding causes of deaths of Tanya & Twinkle can be given. He has also deposed that he is only MBBS and he has not undergone any special training in anesthesia and its coronary branch except the studies in this regard, which were part of his MBBS course. Succinilyne Choline Chloride is consisted of a compound known as Succinilyne Choline and he standby his opinion already Ex.PW13/C & Ex.PW13/D. This witness has been again recalled after allowing the application U/S 311 of Cr.PC moved by the Ld. APP for the State vide order dated 23.01.2018 passed by this Court. This witness has deposed that Succinilyne Choline Chloride is muscle relaxant and it causes respiratory paralysis and may cause death in over dose. This court has asked the following question to this witness and he has answered the same as under:
Q. Can you tell about the cause of death of baby Tanya & Twinkle after seeing the postmortem reports Ex.PW13/A & Ex.PW13/B ? Answer. After perusal of the postmortem report & viscera report & piece of skin from the injection's side, I am of the opinion no definite opinion regarding cause of death can be given.
Court Question. You have incorporated in the postmortem reports of Tanya Ex.PW13/A & Twinkle Ex.PW13/B that lungs, heart, lever, Gallbladder, kidney, spleen, pancreas, stomach & brain matter meninges and cerebrail vessels as congested. Whether these congestions in these organs of baby Tanya & baby Twinkle could be caused with over doses of Succinilyne Choline FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 68/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
Chloride?
Answer. Congestions are consistent with drug poisoning, a possibility of such congestion in these organs may be noticed in case of over dosing of Succinilyne Choline Chloride. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that no definite opinion regarding cause of deaths of Tanya & Twinkle can be given.
69. Since, in the Postmortem reports of baby Tanya & Twinkle reveal that lever gallbladder, spleen, kidney, pancreas and stomach are stated to be congested, so in the light of answer given by this witness to the court question, the possibility of congestion in the above said parts of body of the deceased baby Tanya & baby Twinkle with the over dose of Succinilyne Choline Chloride cannot be ruled out and it appears to the court that this witness had hesitated in giving the reply to the court question, as the accused in the present case is a Doctor by Profession. Since the postmortem report of baby Tanya Ex.PW13/A reveals that repeated injection's marks over over left dorsum of hand, left wrist outer aspect & on left cubital fossae were found and similarly from the postmortem report of baby Twinkle Ex.PW13/B reveals that repeated Injection's marks on right wrist inner aspect, on right cubital fossae & on the left cubital fossae were found, which go to show that this accused had repeatedly injected to both of her daughters baby Tanya & baby Twinkle and in view of the administration of Succynile injection, the congestion in various parts of baby Tanya & baby Twinkle were observed by doctor and such conduct of this accused in administering repeated injections to both the deceased manifests her intention to kill her both daughters and also her knowledge that in all probabilities, both of her daughters would die.
70. Whereas, Dr. Shivani, who had medically examined Tanya, Twinkle and Roopa Singh, has been examined as PW-4, who has deposed that she had seen FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 69/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
the MLR No. 1362 of Tanya D/o Rajeev Singh aged 3 years 9 months, female and MLR bearing no. 1361 of Twinkle D/o Rajeev Singh aged 3 years 9 months female who were brought with alleged history of poisoning following by unconsciousness and patients were brought in Triage (Emergency) and there was no spontaneous respiration, no cardiac activity, pupils were dialated and fixed, peripheral pulses absent and immediate resuscitation was done, intubation was done, IV canula secure, paediatrician were informed, CPR was continued till 20 minutes. But there was no cardiac activity. Both the patients were declared clinically dead at 10:20 PM, blood samples were collected and sealed and she had prepared their MLRs Ex.PW4/A & Ex.PW4/B respectively and she had also identified her signatures at points A thereof. She has also deposed that she has seen the MLR of Roopa Singh bearing no. 1363 and as per alleged history given by her husband, it was a case of self injection of some unknown drug and she was received in emergency in an unconscious state and she was not responding to verbal commands. There was no breath sound, heart sounds were hearable, per abdomen was soft and bowel sounds were present. She (accused) was not responding to verbal and painful stimuli. Intubation was done, gastric lavage done and samples collected, Dr. Vinita physician was informed and patient was shifted to ICU. She has proved the MLR of this accused Ex.PW4/C and identified her signature thereon at point A. This witness has also deposed that patient was unfit for making statement vide her endorsement at point B. This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. So, the opportunity given to the accused to cross- examine this witness was done nil. Thus, from the unrebutted, uncontroverted and unimpeached testimony of this witness and MLR of Tanya Ex.PW4/A, MLR of Twinkle Ex.PW4/B & MLR of accused Roopa Singh Ex.PW4/C, it is proved that history of self injection of this accused was given by her husband Dr. Rajeev Ranjan (PW7) to Dr. Shivani (PW4) and MLR of this accused Ex.PW4/C reveals that husband of this accused had told to Dr. Shivani(PW4) that this accused had self injected some unknown drug and for the same reason, FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 70/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
the PW4 had incorporated in the MLR of this accused Ex.Pw4/C that the husband of this accused had told the alleged history of self injection of unknown drug at the time of her admission in the max hospital on 01.07.2009 at 09:45 PM and diagnosis on the MLR Ex.PW4/C of this accused also reveals unknown poisoning and the MLR of this accused also reveals that at the time of her admission in the Max Hospital, she was unconscious and similarly the MLR of baby Tanya Ex.pw4/A reveals that she was also admitted in Max hospital on 01.07.2009 at 09:45 PM by Dr. Rajeev Ranjan(PW-7), who is her father and even in the Ex.PW4/A, the alleged history of poisoning followed by unconscious is mentioned and she was also diagnosed unknown poisoning and baby Tanya was declared clinically dead at 10:20 PM on dated 01.07.2009 and similarly, in the MLR of baby Twinkle Ex.PW4/B, the alleged history of unknown poisoning followed by unconsciousness is mentioned and she was also diagnosed unknown poisoning and she was also declared clinically dead on 01.07.2009 at 10:20 PM and since the PW4 has proved all three MLRs and information regarding poisoning to both the daughters of accused were given by PW-7, who is husband of this accused and father of both the deceased children. Since Dr. Shivani was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused, so, her testimony has gone unrebutted, uncontroverted, unchallenged and unimpeached and thus, from the testimony of PW-4 Dr. Shivani and contents of these three MLRs, it is proved on the record that the history of poisoning followed by unconsciousness was given to PW-4 Dr. Shivani by PW- 7 Dr. Rajiv Ranjan and since PW-4 has also deposed in the court that husband of this accused had told that accused had self injected some unknown drug and this fact is not controverted, rebutted or challenged. So, I have no ground to disbelieve such unrebutted, uncontroverted and unchallenged testimony of PW4 and the contents of MLR of baby Tanya Ex.PW4/A, MLR of baby Twinkle Ex.Pw4/B & MLR of accused Roopa Ex.PW4/C.
71. Since in the case in hand, this is proved on record from the testimony of FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 71/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
PW7 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan, who is the husband and DW8, who is the mother-in- law of this accused that this accused had taken baby Tanya & Twinkle from matrimonial home that too without intimating to her husband (PW-7) and also to her mother in law(DW8) and she had also taken her passport and PAN Card with her and DW8 has lastly seen to this accused with her two daughters namely, Twinkle & Tanya (since deceased) at her house and thereafter on arrival of this accused Roopa in the hotel, she was also lastly seen by Anil(PW1), Vishal(PW5) & Prabir Kumar Rao(PW9) in the company of her twin daughters, while this accused had taken her daughters in room no. 601 in the Hotel City Park and similarly PW3 has also proved on record that when this accused had returned hotel in his taxi, even then, this accused was seen with her two daughters and thereafter, the door of the said room no. 601 of the hotel city park was found to be bolted from inside and when this accused along with twin daughters(since deceased) were brought out from the said room after breaking the door of the said room, this accused and her twin daughters were found to be in unconscious condition and when this accused along with her twin daughters were taken to Max Hospital by PW7 and cousin of PW7 her twin daughters were declared dead and since the room no. 601 of City Park was found to be closed from inside and there was none except accused & her twin daughters and this accused was lastly seen with the deceased baby Twinkle and Tanya by DW8 at her house and by PW1, PW3, PW5 & PW9 in the hotel City Park and even the PW-7 has also deposed that he had heard the noise her twin daughters on phone in the company of this accused, when, he was making talk on phone. Whereas, the facts of purchasing of Sucol Injections & syringes by this accused Roopa are proved by Ashok Kumar Manchanda (PW6), Kamal Kishor (PW10) & Bhushan Mishra (PW11) and recovery of empty vials of Sucol injections & Syringes from the room no. 601 of the hotel City Park, three marks of injections on the bodies of each deceased are proved from postmortem reports of baby Tanya Ex.PW13/A & of baby Twinkle Ex.PW13/B and are all incriminating circumstances against this accused, which go to prove FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 72/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
that this accused had repeatedly injected Sucol Injections to baby Tanya & baby Twinkle and also self injected the same injection & phoned to her husband and told about the same, who had immediately arrived in the said hotel and took this accused & her daughters Tanya & Twinkle in the Max Hospital and Tanya & Twinkle expired and this accused survived.
72. In case Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006)(3) SCC(Crl.)179, their lordship of Supreme Court observed that "the last seen theory come into play, where time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is too small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible",
73. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Muhibur Rahman vs. State of Assam, (2002) 6 SCC 715, are also relevant on the circumstance of last seen:
The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. There may be cases where, on account of close proximity of place and the time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death, a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide. In the present case there is no such proximity of time and place."
74. It is worthwhile to mention here that last seen evidence comes into picture. When, there is very small time gap when, deceased was last seen in the company of accused and the death of deceased and their lordship of their Supreme Court noted general principles in respect of the theory of last seen FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 73/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
together in Bodhraj vs. State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45 as under :
"The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.
75. Coming to the case in hand, since, it is proved on the record from the testimony of PW1, 3, 5, 9 and DW8 that they had lastly seen both the deceased in the company of this accused before their deaths and the gap of time between the last seen of both the deceased with this accused is small and since the room no. 601 was found to be closed from inside, wherein this accused along with the baby Tanya & Twinkle were found to be in unconscious condition, when, the door of the said room was broken and empty vials of sucol neon injections used syringes were also recovered from the same room and since the postmortem report of baby Tanya Ex.PW13/A reveals that repeated injection marks over dorsum of left hand, on left wrist outer aspect & marks on left cubital fossae and similarly the postmortem report Ex.PW13/B of baby Twinkle reveals that repeated Injection marks on right wrist inner aspect, on right cubital fossae & on left cubital fossae and these repeated injection marks on the dead body of both the children, show that this accused had repeatedly given Sucol injections to both the children. Since, it is not the case of the accused that children were sick or that in view of their sickness, both the victims were injected by this accused, so, in the absence of any such defense and in view of recovery of empty vials of sucol injection & used syringes from the room no.
FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 74/100601 of hotel City Park, wherein, accused had stayed with her both daughters Tanya & Twinkle and since the postmortem of reports of baby Tanya & Twinkle Ex.PW13/A & Ex.PW13/B reveal that brain matters meninges, cerebral vessels, levers, Gallbladders, Spleens, Kidneys, Pancreas were found to be congested and since PW13 Dr. V. K. Jha has testified that the congestion of internal organs, which is common symptom of death by asphyxia i.e. lack of oxygen in the body & brain and also deposed in the court that congestion are consisted with the drug poisoning and possibility of such congestion in the above said organs may be noticed in case of overdosing of Succinilyn Cholin Chloride. Since repeated injections marks are found on the dead bodies of baby Tanya & baby Twinkle and the said marks of injections on their bodies are not disputed. As no question regarding the presence of repeated marks of injection on the bodies of both the deceased was asked nor any question was asked to this witness regarding the congestions in the internal organs of both the deceased. Thus, from the contents of postmortem report of baby Tanya Ex.PW13/A & postmortem report of baby Twinkle Ex.PW13/B, it is proved that there were repeated injections marks on the dead bodies of the deceased and their internal organs were congested. So, in the given circumstance, this court is of the considered opinion that the deceased baby Tanya & baby Twinkle were repeatedly given administered injection of Sucol by this accused, which were purchased from Madhuban Pharmacy, by her, as the fact of puchasing of sucol injection from Madhuban Pharmacy by this accused has been proved by PW6, namely Ashok Kumar Manchanda, PW10 Kamal Kishor & PW11 Bhushan Mishra.
76. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also submitted that without any basis, the police has mentioned the wrong facts in Rukka Ex.PW33/A which was prepared at 02.07.2009 at 07:00 PM and also in the FIR registered on dated 02.07.2009 at 07:30 PM, wherein, it is mentioned that Roopa Singh (accused), who is the professional doctor had administered the poisonous injection to her FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 75/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
twin daughters, namely, Twinkle & Tanya with the intention to kill them. But, this court does not find any force in such submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused. As the perusal of the record shows that DD No. 56-B was lodged on dated 01.07.2009 at 10:10 PM, wherein, it is mentioned that information was received that from the hotel city park, some persons had stayed in a room and it was asked that something wrong was there in the room of the said in the hotel City Park and it was asked to open the door of the room and on breaking the door of the room, three persons were found to be unconscious therein and their relatives had taken them to the Max Hospital. Rukka Ex.PW33/1 reveals that DD no. 56-B was marked to SI Sh. R. D. Sharma and when R. D. Sharma along with Ct. Surender arrived in the room no. 601 and found that door of the said room was broken open and in the said room and there was bed-sheet of white colour on the bed and blood stains were also found thereon and 03 used syringes, two empty bottle of the Sucol injections were also recovered from the room no. 601. Wherein, the accused had stayed with baby Twinkle & Tanya. The MLR of Tanya(deceased) Ex.PW4/A, MLR of Twinkle(deceased) Ex.PW4/B & MLR of Roopa Singh Ex.PW4/C were also obtained and during evidence, the same have been proved on record by Dr. Shivani, who has been examined as PW4 and MLR of accused Ex.PW4/C & testimony of PW4 Shivani shows that history of Roopa was given by PW7 to this doctor and that "as history of self injections of some unknown drugs in column of diagnosis, unknown poisoning" is mentioned in the MLR Ex.PW4/C of Roopa Singh, the date & time of arrival is 01.07.2009 at 09:45 PM and it also reveals that this accused was taken to the Hospital by Dr. Rajeev (PW7) as his name is mentioned therein and she was also found to be unconscious & unfit for making statement at that time and as per the noting, this accused was fit for making statement on 04.07.2009 and perusal of MLR Ex.PW4/A of Tanya reveals that alleged history of poisoning followed by unconsciousness and in column of diagnosis "Unknown poisoning" is also mentioned. It also reveals the date & time of arrival in the Max Hospital as 01.07.2009 at 09:45 PM and FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 76/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
this witness was taken to Max Hospital, who is father of deceased.
77. Similarly, the MLR of Twinkle Ex.PW4/B reveals that history of poison followed by unknown drug and in the column of diagnosis unknown poisoning is mentioned.
78. Thus, from the MLR of accused Roopa Singh Ex.PW4/C, it is proved on record that Dr. Rajeev had told to PW4 Dr. Shivani that this accused had self injected some unknown drugs & also told that baby Tanya & Twinkle were poisoned some unknown drugs followed by unconsciousness and in view of recovery of two empty vials of sucol injections & syringes, from the room no. 601 of Hotel City Park, it cannot be said that fact of administration of poisonous injections was mentioned in rukka & FIR without any basis. It is also pertinent to mention here that PW4 Dr. Shivani, who has proved the MLR Ex.PW4/C of this accused, MLR Ex.PW4/B & Ex.PW4/A and she has not been cross examined, so, opportunity to cross examine this witness was done nil. Since, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has not cross examined to PW4 and therefore, her unrebutted, uncontroverted & unimpeached testimony of PW4 Dr. Shivani is found to be trustworthy. So, it is relied upon.
79. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that rukka was prepared on the statement of Sub Inspector Sh. R.D. Sharma, who had recoverd the injections, syringes & bed sheets Etc. from the room of the hotel. So, the accused cannot be convicted. He has relied upon the judgment passed by their lordship of supreme court in case Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0455/1995. Whereas, Ld. APP for the State has submitted that since the Sh. R. D. Sharma had fairly investigated the matter, so, accused cannot be acquitted on the ground that rukka was prepared on the statement of Sh. R. D. Sharma. He has relied upon the judgment passed by their Lordship of their Supreme Court in case S. Jeevanatham Vs. State though Inspector of FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 77/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
Police Tamil Nadu 2004 CRI. L. J. 3834, wherein, their lordship had relied upon its previous judgment passed in case State Vs. V. Jayapaul 2004(3) scale
507.
80. Since, their lordship of Supreme Court in case State Vs. V. Jayapaul 2004(3) scale 507 was pleased to hold that "we find no principle or binding authority to hold that the moment, the competent officer on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR incorporating his name as informant, he forfiets his right to investigate, if at all such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of investigating officer. The question of bias depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified preposition in which, it has been done"
81. Coming to the case, since this court does not find bias or unfairness in the investigation and this court relies upon the judgment passed by their lordship of supreme court in case State Vs. V. Jayapaul 2004(3) scale 507, I am inclined to hold that no unfairness or bias can be attributed to SI R.D. Sharma, who prepared the rukka. So, the judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused of case Megha Singh Vs. State of Harayana MANU/SC/0466/1995 is of no help for accused in the light of the judgments passed by their lordship of Supreme Court in case State Vs. V. Jayapaul 2004(3) scale 507 & S. Jeevanatham Vs. State though Inspector of Police Tamil Nadu 2004 CRI. L. J. 3834.
82. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that this accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind, so, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. But, the perusal of the record shows that the Ld. Counsel for the accused has not given such suggestion to any of the prosecution's witnesses that at the time of occurrence, this accused was FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 78/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
suffering from unsoundness of mind. The perusal of the statement of the accused recorded U/S 313 of Cr.PC reveals that this accused has nowhere stated that she was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the offences. This accused has admitted her presence in the hotel City Park on dated 01/07/2009 in her statement recorded U/S 313 of Cr.PC. when, this accused was asked the question no. 2 in her statement recorded U/S 313 of Cr.PC, the incriminating evidence of PW3 was put before this accused, wherein, it is mentioned that Kulbir Singh(PW3) after receiving the call from the hotel had arrived in the hotel at 06:15 PM and then, this accused along with her minor daughters had boarded in the said taxi and went to SM Store, Ashiana and went to Mahavir Hospital and when PW3 parked his taxi in the parking of Mahavir Hospital, the accused went to the shop of pharmacy after leaving her children in the taxi and thereafter, this witness (PW3) brought them back to hotel City Park and at 07:30 PM after leaving the goods in the hotel and collected Rs. 250/-, from the counter of hotel City Park. This accused did not deny the correctness of such testimony & replied that she does not remember and when the question no. 3 was asked to this accused, wherein, it was mentioned that on 01.07.2009 at 07:00 PM, this accused had given a prescription of injections Sucol Neon and two syringes of 10 ml, four of 5 ml and two syringes of 2 ml, of Saroj Hospital to PW6 Ashok Kumar Manchanda, partner of Madhuban Pharmacy in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Rohini then, on being passing of such prescription of this accused by PW6 to his employee PW10 Kamal Mishra, another employee at the Pharmacy had prepared the cash memo no. 5592 for Rs. 164.50 copy whereof is Ex.PW6/B bill book no. 56, which was seized by police vide memo Ex.PW6/A and this accused did not deny the correctness and replied that she does not remember. Similarly, when, at the time of her recording of the statement of accused U/S 313 of Cr.PC, Question No. 16 was asked by way of putting incriminating evidence before her, wherein, it was mentioned that on dated 05.07.2009 that PW32 Dr. Bhrighunath had identified the dead bodies of his grand daughters FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 79/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
namely, Twinkle in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital vide his statement Ex.PW32/A & Ex.PW32/B and PW7 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan had also identified the dead bodies of his two daughters vide Ex.PW33/C & Ex.PW33/D. PW33 had prepared the inquest i.e. unnatural death report Ex.PW33/E & Ex.PW33/F and his request for postmortem of Twinkle Ex.PW33/G1 & Ex.PW33/G2 and this accused replied that she does not know. Thus, the correctness of unnatural deaths of Baby Twinkle & Tanya have also not been denied by the accused. So, in view of such evasive replies of the accused, an adverse inference is drawn against this accused in the light of judgment passed by their lordship of Supreme Court in case Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor. Crl. Appeal No. 1316 of 2008
83. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that since DW9 Dr. Nimesh G. Desai is the Director of IHBAS, who has deposed in the court that this accused was highly distressed, crying profusely with preoccupation about her twin children and her guilt for having killed them and also submitted that this witness had also deposed that accused was suffering from typical symptoms of major depressive disorder atleast one week before the event of death of twin daughters of this accused. So, accused is entitled to get benefit of Section 84 of the IPC. This court has perused the testimony of DW-9 Dr. Nimesh G. Desai, who has deposed that this accused was highly distressed and she was crying about her children and for her guilt for having killed them and also deposed that this accused had typical symptoms of major depressive disorder for atleast one week prior to the death of her daughters on 01.07.2009. Thus, from such testimony of DW9, it is clear that this accused would have told to this DW9 that she had killed her daughters and she was having guilt for the same. This DW9 has produced & proved the documents that is discharge summary of this accused Ex.DW9/J, which reveals that accused was having problems in relation with her spouse and discharge summary of this accused FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 80/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
also shows that this accused was admitted in the IHBAS on dated 10.07.2009 and discharge on dated 29.04.2010 and in the column of present history in the said document, it is mentioned that on 01.07.2009, this accused made suicidal attempt and allegedly killed her daughters after altercation at home. It also reveals that accused has no past history or family history of Psychiatric illness. Thus, from the discharge summary produced by DW9, it is proved that this accused was not having any past or family history of Psychiatric illness and she was serving as Gynecologist. This DW9 has also produced the record of admission of this accused in IHBAS Ex.DW9/G at page no. 2 thereof in column no. 5 of past history of this accused. It is mentioned that this accused had injected twin daughters some poison along with herself in a hotel and twin daughters died, but, she (Roopa Singh) survived and in the column no. 7(thereof), which is relating to personal history. It is mentioned that this accused is married and her husband is a doctor and this accused is stated as Gynecologist and it is also mentioned therein that "history of physical and mental torture alleged by patient". Thus, from these documents proved by this DW9, it is also clear that this accused had told in IHBAS that after altercation at home, she had attempted to commit suicide by injecting herself some poison and killed her twin daughters by way of injecting poisonous injections to her minor daughters and in the column of her personal history, she has alleged that she was physically & mentally tortured. It is worthwhile to mention here that DW9 has deposed that accused had typical symptoms of major depressive disorder for atleast one week before the deaths of her twin daughters on 01.07.2009. But, during his cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State, this witness had admitted it to be correct that there is no medical science, which may assess the exact period of depression and also admitted he has given such opinion on the information received by him from the accused, her husband, her in laws & her parents during the ventilation session of this accused. This DW9 has also admitted it to be correct that at the time of the occurrence, this accused was working in Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital. Therefore, such testimony of FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 81/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
the DW9 does not inspire any confidence that this accused was suffering from depressive disorder one week prior to the murders of her twin daughters by her and after committing the murder of her twin daughters, she had also attempted to commit suicide by way of injecting the injection to herself in view of such depression. Even otherwise, this accused was serving as a Doctor in Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital and testimony of PW28 Dr. Dolly Chawla HOD, reveals that this accused had gone on her duty in the hospital even on 29.06.2009 and this accused was working as Gynecologist in the said hospital and this DW9 has also deposed that accused was suffering from major depressive disorder with suicidal risk such type of disease, wherein, the patient makes suicidal attempt & indulged in killing young children. But such testimony of DW9 also does not inspire any confidence. As this accused was serving as Gynecologist and this is most sensitive job of a lady doctor, who helps to the ladies in giving birth to the children and from testimonies of DW3 Dr. Preeti, it is clear that this accused was a perfect Gynecologist, DW4 Dr. Nidhi Tiwari has deposed during her cross examined that accused Roopa was doing 8-10 cesarean and about 10-15 deliveries in a day and since, this accused was doing such a sensitive job that too with perfection and Dr. Preeti Garbyal has deposed that this accused was empathetic to the child. So, such opinion of the DW9 does not inspire any confidence that this accused was suffering from such disease, wherein, patient commits suicidal attempts or kills to the children. Since, at the time of cross-examination of DW9, the Ld. APP for the State had given suggestion to this witness that he had put the hand of blessing on the head of this accused Roopa in the court, prior to his examination in this Court and this witness has admitted it to be correct that this court has also noticed that on the date of recording of the examination in chief, when this witness had entered in this court room, he had put his hand of blessing on the head of accused and such gestures of this witness shows that he had come to the court to depose in favour of the accused i.e. why, he deposed in his examination in chief that this accused was suffering from major depressive disorder, one week FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 82/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
prior to the commission of murders by this accused of her twin daughters & also attempt to commit suicide by this accused. But during his cross examination, he has admitted it to be correct that there is no medical science, which may assess the exact period of depression and also deposed that he had given such opinion on the informations received from the accused, her husband, her in laws and her parents.
84. No doubt that Dr. V. K. Jha, who has been examined as PW-13, who had conducted the postmortem of both children i.e. Twinkle & Tanya, he had failed to disclose the causes of deaths of both the children and initially, he had subjected his opinion regarding the causes of death of both of the reports of Visceras. But, from the report of viscera, the cause of deaths of baby Tanya & Twinkle could not be cleared. IO had caused unnecessarily delay in sending the exhibits to the FSL for the best reason known to him. It appears to the court that the IO was negligent person, who did not send the exhibits to the FSL promptly. Exhibits were sent to the FSL on dated 30.09.2009 and report of FSL Ex.PW31/A reveals that the Succinilyne Chlorine Chloride was detected only the exhibits 18-A & 18-B, which were Vials of Succinilyne recovered from the room no. 601 of the Hotel City Park, wherein, accused was found in unconscious condition along with her both daughters, namely, Twinkle & Tanya. Since, the Postmortem Reports of Tanya & Twinkle (Deceased) prepared by PW13 Dr. V.K. Jha reveals the congestion the internal organs of both the deceased and 03 repeated mark of injections on the dead bodies of each deceased were found, which show that this accused had repeatedly given injections of Sucol to the children, which caused congestion in the organs of both the deceased and resulted in their deaths. Since, it is not the case of the accused that baby Tanya & Twinkle were sick or that they were injected by this accused to cure them. so, in the absence of such defense and in view of recovery of empty vials of Sucol from room no. 601 of the hotel City Park, wherein, accused had stayed with her both children, I hold that this accused had FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 83/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
repeatedly injected the injections of Sucol to the children with the intention to kill them after altercation at home and since this accused is qualified doctor and she is MBBS & D.G.O. and she was also having knowledge that with such acts of injecting the overdoses of Sucol Neon injections to both children, in all probabilities, they would die. Thus, presence of such numbers of marks of injections in the dead bodies of both of babies Tanya & Twinkle and recovery of empty vials sucol neon are also incriminating evidences against this accused.
85. The accused was having opportunity to explain about the injections marks on the bodies of her deceased daughters Tanya & Twinkle in her statement recorded U/S 313 of Cr.PC, when Postmortem Report was put before her, but, this accused did not explain about the same. So, an adverse inference is drawn against this accused.
86. From the statements of PW-7 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan & DW-8 Mrs. Bhagyawati Singh, it is clear that on the date of occurrence, this accused left her matrimonial home without giving any intimation to Dr. Rajeev Ranjan(PW-
7), who is her husband and DW-8 Bhagyawati, who is her mother-in-law that too with Passport & PAN Card, it is pertinent to mention here that a common man/woman never carries Passport & PAN Card with him/her at all the times. So, such conduct of this accused Roopa Singh of taking her Passport & PAN Card with her at the time of leaving her home shows that she had pre-plan to take room in the hotel to execute her plan of killing the both the children and to commit suicide, as she was aware that for hiring the room in the said hotel, she had to show the documentary proof of her identity and in view of the same, she took her Passport & PAN Card with her in a preplanned manner and undisputedly, she handed over the copies thereof to the PW1 Anil Kumar in the hotel City Park at the time of taking of the room in the hotel City Park and she took room no. 601 in the Hotel City Park and then, she took the taxi from the said hotel and went to the shop of Pharmacy Madhuban, purchased the FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 84/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
injections of Sucol Neon Injections & syringes vide bill Ex.PW6/B and such conduct of this accused manifests that prior to committing of the murders of baby Tanya & Twinkle and committing attempt to suicide, she had done all these things with due deliberation and in preplanned manner.
87. Perusal of Declaration Statement Ex.PW27/A reveals that at the time of joining of this accused as Gyne & Obs. in Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, the accused had given declaration therein that she did not suffer from any Psychological Disorder due to over work load or other case. Thus, it is clear that even after solemnizing her love marriage with PW-7 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan, this accused did not suffer from any such Psychological Disorder. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that this accused did not have any history of Psychological Disease.
88. On the date of occurrence, this accused was having matrimonial home in Rohini Sector 11, delhi and she was living along with her husband, daughters & mother-in-law. Dr. Rajeev Ranjan is the husband of the accused. This is proved on record that this accused had taken the room no. 601 of hotel City Park in the evening of 01.07.2009 and since this accused was having matrimonial home in Rohini Sector 11, then, what was the need to take the room in the hotel City Park on dated 01.07.2009 and from the testimony of Sh. Rajeev Ranjan (PW-7) & Mrs. Bhagyawati DW-8, it is proved on record that this accused took her daughters, namely, Twinkle & Tanya in the hotel City Park that too without intimating to her husband(PW7) and her mother-in-law, who has been examined as DW8 and PW7 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan has deposed that on dated 01.07.2009 after returning from hospital at 05:00 PM, he took the meal and slept and thereafter, he got up and went to meet his colleague and at the time of his departure, his wife & her children were not there at home and this PW-7 thought that his wife had taken her children to the Park. Thus, it is clear that this accused had left her matrimonial home without intimating to her husband FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 85/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
and similarly of DW-8 Bhagyawati Singh has also deposed in the court that on the date of occurrence, DW-8 had came at home and found that this accused was sleeping and after taking meal, this DW-8 went to sleep and at about 04:00 PM, she did not find this accused and her twin daughters at home and also deposed that she thought that she might have gone in the Park and when, this witness telephonically contacted with this accused, she replied that "I will come back" and when this accused did not return to her house then, DW8 went to see this accused and babies Tanya & Twinkle in the park and this witness also did not find the accused & her daughters in the park and such conduct of the accused reveals that this accused intentionally did not inform to her mother- in-law and her husband, at the time of leaving her matrimonial home and went to the hotel along with her two daughters and took the room therein and even on receiving of telephonic call from her mother-in-law, this accused did not tell her that she was in hotel and she misled to old lady(DW8) that she would return home and from testimony of PW7 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan, it is clear that even during the telephonic talk of this accused with her husband intentionally, she did not inform him that she was in the hotel and PW7 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan has deposed in the court that when, he arrived at the home, then, he did not find the accused Roopa Singh & his daughters at home, then, he went to Metro Walk in Sector 11 and even, he did not find them there. In the meantime, when this PW7 had received the telephonic call from his wife i.e. accused and on repeated asking, this accused had told to PW7 that she was in the hotel City Park that too when she was facing difficulty in breathing, PW7 rushed to hotel City Park along with his cousin and such conduct of this accused manifests that there was something wrong in the relation of this accused with her husband and such conduct of the accused also manifests her malafide intention. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that this accused was a caring mother and she admitted her children in an expensive school in the name of G.D.Goenka School and DW8 (mother in law of the accused) has also deposed that she was very caring mother and once her daughter had suffered minor FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 86/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
injury, she had shown her to many doctors, who have been examined in defence as witness, so, she could not commit murders of her twin daughters and it is proved on record that this accused was suffering from severe depressive disorder.
89. Since, this accused had taken the plea of unsoundness of mind, so, as per the provision of Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving such plea of unsoundness of mind was on the accused and for exoneration from her liability to commit the offences of murders of babies Tanya & Twinkle and attempt to commit suicide committed by the accused. It was incumbent on the part of the accused to prove that on the date & time of commission of offences on 01.07.2009, this accused was either incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that she was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law and this court is concerned with the legal insanity. As per the mandate of Section 84 of IPC and burden of proving this plea was on the accused as mandated by section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. But the perusal of the record shows that the Ld. Counsel for the accused has not given suggestion to any of the witnesses of the prosecution that at the time of commission of murder of baby Tanya & baby Twinkle or at the time of attempt to commit the suicide by this accused, she was suffering from unsoundness of mind and this accused has not taken this plea of unsoundness of mind even in her statement recorded U/S 313 of Cr.PC. No cogent/ reliable evidence has been brought forth on the record to prove that on dated 01.07.2009, the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind. So, such plea of unsoundness of mind taken by this accused appears belated, after thought and false. So the same is rejected. Since, from the testimony of PW7 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan, it is proved on record that this accused was living in the matrimonial home in Sector 11 along with her children & her husband & her mother-in-law and on the date of occurrence, she had left her matrimonial home along with her two daughters, namely, Tanya & twinkle that too without intimating to her husband and her mother-in-law and since this accused had FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 87/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
taken her passport & PAN card with her at the time of her departure from home. So, it is clear that in the evening of dated 01.07.2009, this accused had left her matrimonial home in preplanned manner and it was well within the contemplation of this accused that for taking a room in the hotel, she has to submit some proof of her identity and she took her both daughters in the hotel and submitted the photocopies of her passport & PAN card with the staff of hotel, took the room no. 601 in City Park Hotel and demanded for a taxi and after availing the taxi, she went to the shop of chemist i.e. Madhuban Pharmacy, purchased the injections of Sucol & syringes returned to hotel, went to the same room of said hotel and injected the same injections to her both daughters repeatedly, as the postmortem reports of the both children reveal that three marks of injections are present on the dead bodies of each deceased and since the congestions in the internal organs of both the deceased were observed by Dr. V. K. Jha and such congestion was the result of administration of injection of Sucol by this accused and this resulted in deaths of baby Tanya & baby Twinkle by Asphyxia and since this accused was arrested on dated 06.07.2009 and she was medically examined in the BJRM Hospital on 07.07.2009 and since she was remanded in Judicial Custody on dated 07.07.2009 and the Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that this accused was admitted in the IHBAS on 10.07.2009, as she was suffering from depression. Since the murders of baby Tanya & Twinkle were committed by this accused in the evening of 01.07.2009, so, this court is concerned with the alleged unsoundness of mind of the accused on the date & time of the occurrence.
90. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that this Court has to consider the state of mind even after the alleged commission of offence. But, this court does not find any force in such submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 88/10091. As their lordship of Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat 1964 AIR SCR (7) 361 was pleased to hold that "When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime."
92. As their lordship of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Paramjeet Singh Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 586/12 had observed that the Unsoundness of mind after or before commission of the offence is not relevant, though may throw light on whether the accused was unsound when the offence was committed.(see State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC 998, S.W. Mohammed V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 2443, Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat 1964 SC 1563)
93. Every man is presumed to be sane, till contrary is established. Insanity or unsoundness of mind of the type stipulated in Section 84 IPC is an exception. Illustration (a) to Section 105 of the Evidence Act, quoted above, casts burden on the accused to show that the exception carved out under Section 84 IPC is applicable and burden is on the accused to prove insanity at the time, when the offence was committed.
94. It is clear from the law laid down by the Apex Court in above said judgment that this court is concerned with the legal insanity at the time of commission of the murder of baby Twinkle & Tanya and at the time of attempt to commit suicide by this accused.
FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 89/10095. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that this accused was suffering from depressive disorder, so, being mentally ill person, she cannot be punished. He has relied upon the opinion of Forensic Expert Dr. Modi and submitted that since the causes of deaths of both the baby Twinkle & baby Tanya have not been proved on record, motive of the accused Roopa for committing the crime and mensrea of this accused to commit the murder of her own daughters, are not proved. So, the accused Roopa Singh may be acquitted. Whereas, the perusal of the record shows that the Ld. Defence counsel did not give suggestion to any of the prosecution witness that this accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind on the date & time of the occurrence. This accused also did not take the plea of unsoundness of mind even at the time of recording of her statement Under Section 313 of Cr.PC. Thus, it appears to the court that the Ld. Counsel for the accused has half heartedly argued on this plea of unsoundness of mind that too at belated stage.
96. If this accused had suffered with any depression, after commiting her in judicial custody, then, the same is inconsequential, as it is generally observed that each & every person, other than, habitual offender or hardcore criminal, suffers from the depression, who is put in jail and it appears to the court that this accused would have felt frustrated after committing of such murders of her own daughters, by way of administering the over dose of injections of Sucol and this injection of Sucol is generally used for the purpose of anesthesia, when, she would have thought that her twin daughters had expired. Since, the accused is qualified doctor, she has passed the MBBS & DGO and on the date of commission of such offences, she was working in a government hospital as Gynecologist and she was hardworking, she was blessed with skill, with which, she could save lakhs of lives, but, this accused has misused her skill & acumen blessed by the God and she was having knowledge that with over dose of Sucol injections, respiratory system of both of her daughters would be effected and they would die with Asphyxia. It is proved on record that at the time of death FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 90/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
of both the children, namely, Tanya & Twinkle were about 03 years and 08 months of ages.
97. Dr. Nimesh G. Desai(DW-9) had produced certain documents and in the discharge summery produced by him, it is mentioned therein that on 01.07.2009, this accused had committed suicidal attempt and allegedly killed her daughters after altercation at home and since from the testimonies of PW7 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan and DW8 Bhagyawati Singh, it is clear that at the time of leaving her house for going to city park hotel, accused had not intimated to the husband(PW7) & mother-in-law(DW8). No doubt that Dr. V. K. Jha, who has been examined as PW-13 has initially subjected his opinion regarding the causes of deaths of both the children, namely, Twinkle & Tanya to the report of viscera and the Ld. Predecessor of this court had again called this doctor and on dated 04.01.2017, this witness has deposed that Succinilyne Choline Chloride is a muscle relaxant and had observed in his postmortem reports already Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B congestion of internal organs, which is a common symptom of death by asphyxia i.e. lack of oxygen in the body and brain. This witness has been again recalled after allowing the application U/S 311 of Cr.PC moved by the Ld. APP for the State vide order dated 23.01.2018 passed by this Court. This witness has admitted therein the possibility of such congestion in these organs of baby Tanya & baby Twinkle due to over doses of Succinilyne choline Chloride and it appears to the court that this witness has hesitatingly given the reply to the court question, as the accused in the present case is a Doctor by Profession. Since, the postmortem report of baby Tanya Ex.PW13/A reveals that repeated injection's marks over over left dorsum of hand, left wrist outer aspect & on left cubital fossae were found and similarly the postmortem report of baby Twinkle Ex.PW13/B reveals that repeated Injection's marks on right wrist inner aspect, on right cubital fossae & on the left cubital fossae were found, which go to show that this accused had repeatedly injected Injections of Sucol to both of her daughters baby Tanya & baby Twinkle and in view of the FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 91/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
administration of Succynile injection, the congestions in various parts of baby Tanya & baby Twinkle were observed by doctor and such conduct of this accused in administering repeated injections of Sucol to both the deceased manifests her intention to kill her both daughters and also her knowledge that in all probabilities, her daughters would die. As she is qualified MBBS & DGO doctor and she was also aware of nature of her act and also aware of provisions of law.
98. The perusal of the record shows that throughout the trial, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has failed to give any suggestion that this accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind and even at the time of recording of the statement of the accused u/S 313 of Cr.PC, she did not take such plea of unsoundness of mind therein and at the time of hearing final arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that this accused is entitled to get the benefit of Section 84 of IPC and this court finds that such plea of accused is belated, afterthought and false and this accused cannot take this plea of unsoundness of mind as this court has observed that this accsued has firstly made preparation to commit the murders of baby Tanya & baby Twinkle as she took room in the hotel, went to purchase injections of Sucol, she along with her both the daughters & syringes, returned to same room in the hotel and repeatedly injected the injection of Sucol to both of her minor daughters, so, it is the case of deliberate murders of baby Tanya & baby Twinkle by this accused, as this accused, after returning from the Madhuban Pharmacy had taken her both the daughters in the room no. 601 of the Hotel City Park, bolted the room from inside and repeatedly injected to both the daughters and also injected herself the same injection of sucol to commit suicide.
99. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that since the discharge summary of Max Hospital of the accused reveals that the counseling of the accused was also advised by the Max Hospital, so, IO was required to take this FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 92/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
accused in IHBAS. But, I do not find any force in such submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the accused, as this accused was discharged from the Max Hospital on dated 06.07.2009 and she was also arrested on dated 06.07.2009 and on dated 07.07.2009 she was medically examined in BJRM Hospital and doctor of the BJRM did not find any abnormality in the behaviour of this accused. Had this accused been observed abnormal, in the BJRM Hospital at the time of her medical examination, it could be incorporated in her medical document, but, this court does not find any such observation of the doctor in the said medical document. This accused was remanded in Judicial Custody on dated 07.07.2009 and when she was remanded in Judicial Custody, then, she would have gone in depression because the name of the jail itself causes depression to the normal human being and she was remanded in JC, she would have suffered with depression and the post murders depression, if any is inconsequential.
100. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that at the time of regaining of the consciousness in the hospital, this accused had asked to W/HC. Asha, who has been examined as PW15 that where were the daughters of accused and submitted that since from the testimonies of defence witnesses, it is proved on record that this accused was a caring mother, she had shown her daughter to many doctors for a minor injury, so, this accused could not commit murder of her own daughters. No doubt that W/HC Asha, who has been examination as PW15 has deposed during her cross-examination that this accused asked her as to where were her daughters. But in view of same, it cannot be held that this accused had not committed murders of her own daughters, as this accused would have asked to this witness PW15 about her daughters to know about her daughters, as she was aware that she had injected sucol injections to both of her daughters.
101. No doubt, there is no eye witness of commission of murder of the deceased Tanya & Twinkle and since this case is based on the circumstantial FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 93/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
evidence, so as per section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, motive to commit the offence and previous conduct and conduct of the accused subsequent to the commission of the offence are also relevant and the proof of motive is never indispensable for the conviction. The absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of the circumstances connecting the accused with the crime not militates against the prosecution as it was observed in case State of U.P. vs. Babu Ram, 2000 (11) AD 285 as under:
"No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental imposition of an offender towards the person whom he offered."
102. Whereas, their lordship Hidayatullah J. in Baswantrao Bajirao Vs. Emperor, 1949 Cri.L.J., 181 where the accused had killed his two wives, has opined:-
"34. As to the second point about motive. The prosecution did not lead some evidence of motive but the learned Sessions Judge did not accept it. I do not differ from the learned Sessions Judge and give the accused the benefit of the doubt. One fact, however, stares me in the facr and it is the failure of the two wives to bear a son to the accused. When a man destroys his two wives in the manner he did there might be a hundred different reasons which migh have prompted the action. Though I do not go as far as Mayne J. did when he said:"that it is never neceassry toi seek the motive for a murder when the person murdered is the man's own wife" Mayne p. 185(ibid) I am of opinion FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 94/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
that failure to prove a motive does not necessarily mean that there was no motive. In Beg v. Haynes, (1859)1 P and P 666 : 175 B. Rule 898) Bramwell B. in summing up to the jury, said.
103. Whereas, their lordship of Supreme Court in case Bhagirath and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 3431, was pleased to hold that motive is a double edged weapon. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that non proving of motive to commit the offences beyond reasonable is not fatal for the case of the prosecution. This case is based on circumstantial evidences.
104. Since in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) (4) SCC 116], the lordship of their supreme court was pleased to lay down the following test for relying upon the circumstantial evidence: (1) The circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
105. Since in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) (4) SCC 116], the lordship of their supreme court was pleased to lay down the following test for relying upon the circumstantial evidence: (1) The circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 95/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
106. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has proved the following incriminating circumstances against accused Roopa Singh:-
(i) From the testimonies of Dr. Rajeev Ranjan (PW7) & Mrs. Bhagyawati Singh (DW8), it is proved on record that this accused had taken her daughters namely, Tanya & Twinkle in the hotel City Park without intimating to PW7 & DW8.
(ii) From the unimpeached testimonies of PW1 Anil Kumar, PW5 Vishal Mathur, PW9 Parbir Kumar Roy, it is proved on record that in the evening of 01.07.2009, this accused took room no. 601 in the Hotel City Park and took her daughters Twinkle & Tanya in the said room.
(iii) From the unimpeached testimony of PW3 Kulbir Singh, it is proved that in the evening of 01.07.2009, he took this accused Roopa with his two daughters at Madhuban Pharmacy, from where, this accused had purchased Sucol injections & syringes and he had also left the accused along with her two daughter in the Hotel City Park.
(iv) Whereas, PW6 Ashok Kumar Manchanda, PW10 Kamal Kishor, PW11 Bhushan Mishra have proved on record that this accused Roopa had purchased Sucol Neon injections & syringes from Madhuban Pharmacy vide bill Ex.PW6/B.
(v) From the testimony of PW33 Sh. R. D. Sharma and from the photographs Ex.PW8/1 to 53, it is clear that the empty vials of sucol injection were found in the room no. 601 of the said hotel and door of the room was also found to be broken and report of FSL Ex.PW31/A reveals that Succinyl choline FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 96/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
chloride was found in the vials recovered from the said room of the hotel.
(vi) From the unimpeached testimony of PW7, PW1, PW5, PW9, it is proved that the accused Roopa Singh, baby Tanya & baby Twinkle were found to be unconscious, when they were brought out of room no. 601 of the hotel City Park after breaking the door of the said room.
(vii) From the testimony of DW9 Dr. Nimesh G. Desai, it is proved that the said doctor had observed that this accused was having guilt for having killed her twin daughters on 01.07.2009. Thus, from such testimony of DW9, it is clear that this witness would have deposed so, in view of information received by the said witness from this accused and this witness Dr. Nimesh G. Desai has produced & proved the documents that discharge summary of this accused Ex.PW9/J, which reveals that accused was having problems in relation with her spouse and discharge summary of this accused also shows that in the column of present history in the said document it is mentioned that on 01.07.2009, this accused made suicidal attempt and allegedly killed her daughters after altercation at home. It also reveals that accused has no past history of Psychiatric illness and she was serving as Gynecologist.
(viii) From the postmortem reports of Tanya Ex.PW13/A & Twinkle Ex.PW13/B, it is proved on record that brain matters meninges & cerebrail vessels, lungs, hearts, levers, Gallbladders, kidneys, spleens, pancreas, stomachs of both the deceased were found to be congested and from the testimony of PW13 Dr. V. K. Jha, it is proved on record that Succinilyne Choline Chloride injection is a muscle relaxant and it causes respiratory paralysis, which may cause death in over dose thereof. Thus, from such opinion of Dr. V. K. Jha, the deaths of baby Tanya & Twinkle with the over doses of Sucol injection was possible.
(ix) Dr. Shivani has medically examined baby Tanya, baby Twinkle & accused Roopa from the unrebutted, uncontroverted and unimpeached testimony of this witness and MLR of Tanya Ex.PW4/A, MLR of Twinkle Ex.PW4/B & MLR of accused Roopa Singh Ex.PW4/C, it is proved that FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 97/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
history of self injection of this accused was given by her husband Dr. Rajeev Ranjan (PW7) to Dr. Shivani (PW4) and MLR of this accused Ex.PW4/C reveals that husband of this accused had told to Dr. Shivani(PW4) that this accused had self injected some unknown drug and for the same reason, the PW4 had incorporated in the MLR of this accused Ex.Pw4/C that the husband of this accused had told the alleged history of self injection of unknown drug at the time of her admission in the max hospital on 01.07.2009 at 09:45 PM and diagnosis on the MLR Ex.PW4/C of this accused also reveals unknown poisoning and the MLR of this accused also reveals that at the time of her admission in the Max Hospital, she was unconscious and similarly the MLR of baby Tanya Ex. PW4/A reveals that she was also admitted in Max hospital on 01.07.2009 at 09:45 PM by Dr. Rajeev Ranjan(PW-7), who is her father and even in the Ex.PW4/A, the alleged history of poisoning followed by unconscious is mentioned and she was also diagnosed unknown poisoning and baby Tanya was declared clinically dead at 10:20 PM on dated 01.07.2009 and similarly, in the MLR of baby Twinkle Ex.PW4/B, the alleged history of unknown poisoning followed by unconsciousness is mentioned and she was also diagnosed unknown poisoning and she was also declared clinically dead on 01.07.2009 at 10:20 PM.
(x) From the unimpeached testimonies of PW 1, 3, 5, 9 and DW8, it is proved on record that these witness had lastly seen both deceased baby Tanya & baby Twinkle alive in the company of this accused. They had lastly seen the deceased in the company of this accused before their death and the gap of time between the last seen of the deceased with this accused is small.
107. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has successfully proved on the record the complete chain of incriminating circumstances against the accused Roopa Singh that she had taken her both daughters baby Tanya & baby Twinkle in the room no. 601 of hotel city park in the evening of 01.07.2009 and repeatedly injected sucol FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 98/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
injections and gave over doses of the same to both of her daughters with intention to kill them and also with knowledge that in all probabilities, their deaths would be caused and the same injections congested the organs of both the deceased which resulted in death by Asphyxia and thereafter, she had also attempted to commit suicide by way of self injecting the sucol injections and became unconscious and she regained her consciousness on 04.07.2009 and the doctors succeeded in saving the life of this accused. Thus, the chain of the circumstantial evidence, as discussed above, pointed out only hypothesis that accused Roopa Singh had committed murder of baby Tanya and baby Twinkle and also attempted to commit suicide. This accused has examined Dr. Nimesh G. Desai as DW9 in her defence. Since from the documents produced by DW9, as discussed above, it is revealed that there was some altercation with this accused was held at home and then, this accused took her both daughters in the hotel and she had purchased the injections of Sucol from Madhuban Pharmacy and repeatedly injected the same to her both daughters and committed murders of them and attempted to commit suicide. So, this court does not find any force in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the accused and I am inclined to hold that the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused are not applicable to the case in hand in view of dissimilarities of facts & circumstances of the present case.
108. This court has gone through the judgment relied upon by the Ld. APP for the State, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case Gyarsibai Vs. State of M.P. 1953 CrLJ 588 and as in the said case, the accused Gyarsibai had jumped into a Well along with her three children, after having quarrel with her sister-in-law and her three children got expired in view of her such act and said accused Gyarsibai was rescued by the villagers and she was put a trial and ultimately she was convicted U/S 302/309 of IPC by the Trial Court and the said judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment of the said case FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 99/100 State Vs. Roopa Singh.
is applicable to the case in hand.
109. Similarly if the documents produced by DW9 are looked into, then, it may be inferred that this accused had committed murders after altercation at home and relying upon the judgment passed by their lordship of State of M.P. Gyarsibai Vs. State(SUPRA). I hold this accused Roopa Singh Guilty for committing murders of baby Tanya & twinkle and also for attempt to commit suicide, as the murders of baby Tanya & Twinkle by way of repeatedly injecting the injections of sucol and such act of commission of murders or attempt to commit suicide cannot be justified after any such altercation at home of the accused. Therefore, after holding this accused guilty for murders of baby Tanya & Twinkle and attempt to commit suicide, I convict this accused Roopa Singh under section 302 and 309 of IPC.
Digitally signed by PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR
KUMAR MATTO
Date: 2018.03.07
MATTO 16:38:55 +0530
Announced in the open court (PAWAN KUMAR MATTO)
on 28.02.2018 Special Judge (NDPS)
Additional Sessions Judge
North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
28.02.2018
FIR No. 320/2009 PS Maurya Enclave Page No. 100/100